Picetti v. STRYKER CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation

Background

Robert Picetti filed a state-court complaint alleging that defendants employed him from approximately August 2016 through September 2017 and paid him wholly or partly through commissions. He alleged that defendants failed to pay for all hours worked and failed to provide required meal and rest periods. He asserted eight causes of action under California wage-and-hour laws and California’s unfair-competition statute, on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class. The complaint did not state a damages amount.

Defendants first removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). In an earlier order, the court remanded the case because defendants had not sufficiently shown that the amount in controversy met the applicable threshold. After discovery in state court, defendants removed the case again, relying on information obtained from Picetti.

Individual Claims

For ordinary diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a), the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, and the parties must be citizens of different states. The parties did not dispute their diverse citizenship. Because Picetti’s complaint did not demand a dollar amount, defendants had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence—that it was more likely than not—that his individual claims exceeded $75,000.

Defendants relied on evidence that Picetti worked for Howmedica as a Trauma Sales Representative for 39 days, received $5,000 in compensation and $9,939.48 in commissions, and testified that he probably worked about 100 hours per week, had no meal or rest breaks, and was on call seven days a week. Defendants nevertheless calculated the amount in controversy using a 168-hour workweek, treating Picetti’s statements about being on call as a claim for compensation for every hour of every day.

The court rejected that assumption. It found no assertion by Picetti that he was claiming compensation for more than the 100 hours per week he said he worked. The court stated that any ambiguity was more reasonably understood to mean that Picetti was unable to take meal and rest breaks during his claimed working hours because he had to remain on call. The court therefore found that defendants had not proved that Picetti’s individual claims exceeded $75,000.

Class Claims

For class-action diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(d), the amount in controversy must exceed $5 million, the parties must include citizens of different states, and the proposed class must have at least 100 members. The parties did not dispute the citizenship requirement or that the proposed class included at least 250 people. They disputed whether the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.

Defendants calculated the class amount in controversy as $136,983,760.56. That calculation also depended on the 168-hour-workweek assumption. Defendants further relied on Picetti’s testimony that he believed other representatives performed similar work. But Picetti acknowledged that he had no specific personal knowledge of the hours those other representatives worked, and his understanding was based on conversations and assumptions.

The court held that defendants’ class calculation failed because its first assumption—that Picetti claimed a 168-hour workweek—was unreasonable. The court also found the record unclear about what Picetti meant by saying that other representatives’ work was similar. As a result, defendants did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the class amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.

Ruling

The court granted Picetti’s motion to remand and remanded the case to the Superior Court of California for Alameda County. The court also granted defendants’ motion to strike Picetti’s statement of a recent decision because it was an unauthorized filing under the district’s local rules. Judge M. Chesney signed the order.