Miller v. ICON Clinical Research LLC

Background

Chrystal L. Miller brought a wage-and-hour proposed class action against ICON plc, ICON Clinical Research, LLC, DOCS Global Inc., and Lynda Holcroft. She alleged that ICON employed her as a Clinical Research Associate from approximately October 9, 2017, through March 19, 2019, and misclassified her and other Clinical Research Associates as exempt employees. Her five claims alleged failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay final wages on time, and unlawful and unfair business practices.

The proposed class consisted of people employed in California by ICON plc as Clinical Research Associates during the defined class period. ICON Clinical removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions. Miller moved to remand, meaning she asked the court to return the case to state court. She relied on the Act’s local-controversy exception, which requires a federal court to decline jurisdiction when specified conditions—including that more than two-thirds of the proposed class are citizens of the filing state—are met.

Analysis

The court stated that defendants had the burden of showing that removal was proper, while Miller had the burden of proving that the local-controversy exception applied. The court noted that the parties appeared to agree that the principal injuries occurred in California and that no similar class action had been filed against the defendants during the preceding three years. The disputed issues were whether more than two-thirds of the proposed class were California citizens and whether at least one significant local defendant satisfied the exception’s requirements.

Citizenship of the proposed class

The court held that Miller did not provide sufficient evidence that more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were California citizens when the case became removable. Miller relied on evidence that ICON Clinical employed at least 110 Clinical Research Associates in California during the class period and issued wage statements to approximately 78 California Clinical Research Associates during a later period. The court found that this evidence did not establish how many of the approximately 110 workers were California citizens at the relevant time. The court also noted evidence that approximately 48 of the 110 workers had separated from employment, making it possible that some had later left California, and observed that the class could have included more than 110 people.

The court rejected Miller’s attempt to equate employment or payment in California with California citizenship. It concluded that Miller had not carried her burden on the two-thirds requirement.

Local defendant

The court nevertheless addressed the other disputed requirement. Miller identified Holcroft as a California citizen and submitted evidence that Holcroft was a current California resident who had lived in California continuously since 1991.

For the “significant basis” requirement, the court considered the allegations in the complaint rather than evidence outside the complaint. The complaint alleged that Holcroft was a director of ICON, oversaw the work of Clinical Research Associates, and could be personally liable under California Labor Code section 558.1. The court found these allegations sufficient to show that Holcroft’s alleged conduct formed a significant basis for the claims.

For the “significant relief” requirement, the court noted that Miller asserted all claims against all defendants and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from them equally. The court held that these allegations were sufficient even though the complaint did not allocate specific damages among the defendants.

Other challenges to removal

The court rejected Miller’s argument that removal was untimely. It concluded that the 30-day deadline fell on a Sunday and was extended to the following Monday, when ICON Clinical filed its notice of removal. The court also rejected Miller’s argument that all defendants had to consent to removal, explaining that the Class Action Fairness Act permits any defendant to remove a qualifying class action without the consent of the other defendants.

The court did not decide ICON Clinical’s alternative argument that Holcroft was a sham defendant because it found the evidence insufficient at that stage and did not need to reach the issue. It also did not address Miller’s request for removal-related costs and expenses.

Disposition

The court denied Miller’s motion to remand without prejudice, allowing her to renew the motion based on facts uncovered during discovery. It ordered limited jurisdictional discovery concerning only the citizenship of the proposed class. The order terminated Docket Nos. 9 and 13. The court denied Miller’s request for judicial notice as moot and granted ICON Clinical’s agreed administrative motion to seal.