Kendall v. Verizon Data Services LLC
- Sallie Kim
- 3:22-cv-05324
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kendall v. Verizon Data Services LLC, Judge Chhabria denied remand because recoverable future attorney fees put Kendall’s individual claims above $75,000.
Ann Marie Kendall and Verizon Data Services LLC and the other defendants; Kendall’s motion to return the case from federal court was denied because the court found the amount-in-controversy requirement satisfied.
What happened
Kendall v. Verizon Data Services LLC concerns Kendall’s request to send her putative class action out of federal court. The court considered only whether her individual claims met the amount required for diversity jurisdiction because neither side argued that the Class Action Fairness Act applied.
The court found that Verizon’s estimate was too high because it assumed three hours of unpaid overtime each week and no overtime payment at all. Using one hour per week and reducing the overtime estimate to reflect Kendall’s claim that she received an incorrect overtime rate, the court estimated her claims at about $45,000 before attorney fees.
The court nevertheless denied the motion to remand. Judge Chhabria followed Ninth Circuit precedent requiring courts to include future attorney fees that may be recovered by statute, and concluded those fees would put the amount in controversy above $75,000.
The detailed version
- Kendall v. Verizon Data Services LLC · No. 3:22-cv-05324
- Sallie Kim
- Jan. 17, 2023
Background
Ann Marie Kendall filed a putative class action against Verizon Data Services LLC and others. She moved to remand, meaning she asked the federal court to send the case back from federal court. The court analyzed whether it had diversity jurisdiction over Kendall’s individual claims. The court noted that neither side argued that the Class Action Fairness Act’s jurisdictional requirements were satisfied.
Amount in Controversy
The complaint did not state specific dollar amounts or numbers of hours. The court therefore allowed Verizon to use reasonable assumptions when estimating the amount in controversy. The court agreed with Kendall that Verizon’s assumption of three hours of unpaid overtime per week was too high and concluded that one hour per week was more reasonable.
The court also found a more important problem with Verizon’s calculation. Verizon had assumed that Kendall received no payment for her overtime work. But the complaint alleged only that Verizon failed to pay the correct overtime rate and did not pay “proper overtime wages.” The court therefore reduced Verizon’s overtime estimate by eight-ninths. After that adjustment, the court estimated the value of Kendall’s claims before attorney fees at about $45,000.
Attorney Fees and Ruling
The court explained that, if Kendall prevailed, California Labor Code section 1194 would entitle her to recover reasonable attorney fees. Although the court questioned whether future attorney fees should count toward the amount in controversy, it stated that Ninth Circuit precedent requires courts to include future attorney fees recoverable by statute or contract. The court concluded that Kendall’s fees would exceed the remaining amount needed to bring the total above $75,000, even without counting fees for class certification or class discovery.
The court denied Kendall’s motion to remand. Judge Vince Chhabria entered the order on January 17, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.