Hernandez v. Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc.

Background

Lilliana Hernandez brought an individual wage-and-hour lawsuit against Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. She alleged that Aramark violated several California wage laws and the California Business and Professions Code while employing her as a non-exempt hourly employee. Her complaint asserted eight claims involving minimum wages, overtime and off-the-clock work, rest breaks, meal periods, deductions from wages, final-pay timing, business-expense reimbursement, and unfair competition.

Aramark removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be at stake. Hernandez moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

Complete Diversity

Hernandez argued that both she and Aramark were California citizens. She did not dispute that Aramark was incorporated in Delaware, but she argued that its principal place of business was California rather than Pennsylvania.

The court explained that a corporation’s principal place of business is ordinarily its headquarters, where its officers direct, control, and coordinate the company’s activities. Aramark submitted affidavits stating that its headquarters were in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that its executives and officers directed and coordinated its nationwide operations there. The court found that Aramark had shown it was a citizen of Pennsylvania and Delaware, and not California. It therefore found that the complete-diversity requirement was satisfied.

Amount in Controversy

Hernandez also argued that Aramark had not shown that more than $75,000 was at stake. Aramark estimated total damages of $60,463.60, including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, rest-break and meal-break premiums, business-expense reimbursement, and penalties for allegedly late payment of wages upon termination.

Hernandez estimated her damages at $47,423.44. The court observed that her estimates for rest-break and meal-break premiums were actually higher than Aramark’s estimates. It also noted that her estimate omitted the overtime and business-expense claims. The court found that Aramark’s calculations were supported by the complaint and other evidence, including Hernandez’s average hourly pay rates.

The court further held that recoverable attorney fees could be included in the amount at stake, including reasonable future fees. Using Hernandez’s damages estimate and her estimate of $8,977.50 in fees already incurred, the court determined that $18,600 in future fees would be enough to exceed the $75,000 threshold. It found that Aramark had adequately supported that amount.

The opinion also noted that Aramark’s removal filing appeared to have been made 32 days after service, rather than within the usual 30-day period. Hernandez did not raise that issue in her motion. The court stated that this deadline is a procedural requirement that can be waived and that the court could not return the case on its own based on that defect.

Disposition

The court rejected both of Hernandez’s objections to removal and denied her motion to remand. The opinion addressed whether the federal court could keep the case; it did not decide the merits of Hernandez’s California wage-and-hour claims.