Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 15, 2020

Caballero v. Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc.

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:20-cv-06281
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Caballero v. Fidelitone, Judge Chhabria remanded the case because Fidelitone did not show more than $75,000 was in controversy.

Who this affects

America Caballero and Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc.; the case was ordered returned to Alameda County Superior Court.

What happened

In Caballero v. Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc., America Caballero asked the federal court to send the case back to Alameda County Superior Court. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.

The court granted Caballero’s motion to remand. It ruled that Fidelitone had not shown, by more likely than not, that the amount at stake exceeded $75,000. The court also said Fidelitone’s attorney-fee calculation did not properly use a pro-rata method for a class action and that its unsupported estimate of equipment, payroll fees, and uniforms was insufficient.

Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the clerk to remand the case to Alameda County Superior Court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Caballero v. Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06281
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Dec. 15, 2020

Background

America Caballero moved to remand, meaning to return the case to Alameda County Superior Court. Fidelitone Last Mile, Inc. opposed the motion by arguing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the rule that Fidelitone had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence—that the amount was more likely than not—that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

The court rejected Fidelitone’s attorney-fee calculation because it did not account for the requirement that, when determining the amount in controversy in class-action cases, attorney’s fees must be calculated on a pro-rata basis. The court also rejected Fidelitone’s unsupported assertion that Caballero’s reimbursement claim exceeded the threshold based on the cost of Caballero’s truck, property damage, equipment, payroll fees, and uniforms.

Disposition

The court granted Caballero’s motion to remand. It directed the clerk to remand the case to Alameda County Superior Court.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.