Picetti v. Stryker Corporation

Background

Robert Picetti filed a wage-and-hour putative class action in California state court on November 26, 2019. He alleged that Stryker Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corporation engaged in a pattern and practice of wage violations involving commission-based employees. His eight claims concerned unpaid overtime, meal-period and rest-period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, waiting-time penalties, wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Defendants first removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and ordinary diversity jurisdiction. The court granted Picetti’s first motion to remand. After additional discovery, Defendants removed the case again, and Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted a second motion to remand because Defendants had not established the required amount in controversy.

The case then continued in Alameda County Superior Court for more than two years. The parties conducted discovery and filed nine discovery motions. Defendants moved for summary judgment in September 2022. In May 2023, Picetti provided discovery responses describing the putative class and alleged wage and break policies. Defendants then filed a third notice of removal.

Legal Standard

A defendant may remove a state-court case when a federal district court has original jurisdiction. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, federal jurisdiction generally requires more than 100 class members, minimal diversity between the parties, and more than $5 million in controversy. The defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.

A successive removal is permitted only when later pleadings or events reveal a relevant change in circumstances—a new and different ground for federal jurisdiction. The rule against successive removal is strict.

Court’s Analysis

Picetti argued that the third removal was an attempt to avoid an adverse summary-judgment ruling, that Defendants had not presented new evidence, and that Defendants had not proven that more than $5 million was in controversy. The court decided the motion based on the absence of new evidence and therefore did not need to resolve the other arguments.

The court rejected Defendants’ contention that Picetti’s May 2023 discovery responses supplied new facts. The statements about unpaid wages, missed meal and rest periods, the similarity of class members’ claims, and the alleged unlawful policies all appeared in the original 2019 complaint.

The court also rejected Defendants’ reliance on a declaration from Aliyya Rizley, a senior director of workplace practices at Stryker. The declaration’s information about the number of employees, workweeks, and commissions had already appeared in declarations submitted with Defendants’ first and second removal attempts. Presenting the same information in a different form did not change the nature of the case or create a new basis for removal.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Picetti’s motion to remand. The conclusion states that the action will be remanded to Alameda County Superior Court after the court resolves Picetti’s intended motion for sanctions. The court did not award attorney fees or sanctions in this order. It directed the parties to meet and confer about fees and costs and to submit an agreed or competing schedule by December 1, 2023.