Mora v. Marten Transport, Ltd.
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-06004
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Mora v. Marten Transport, Judge Donato remanded the wage-and-hour class action because Marten did not show $5 million was in controversy.
Hector Mora, the proposed class of current and former Marten truck drivers, and Marten Transport, Ltd.; the case returns to the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County.
What happened
In Mora v. Marten Transport, Ltd., Hector Mora sued Marten Transport under California wage-and-hour laws for himself and a proposed class of current and former truck drivers. Marten moved the case from California state court to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, which requires at least $5 million to be in controversy.
Mora argued that Marten had not supported that amount. After Mora challenged Marten’s calculations, Marten had to prove by more than a 50 percent likelihood that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. The court found that most of Marten’s calculations relied on unsupported assumptions about how many weeks the drivers worked. Its one calculation based on unpaid wages at separation totaled $3,337,200, and even with a possible 25 percent attorney-fee addition, it would reach only $4,171,500.
Judge Donato ruled that Marten had not shown that the case put $5 million or more at stake. He ordered the case remanded to the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County.
The detailed version
- Mora v. Marten Transport, Ltd. · No. 3:23-cv-06004
- James Donato
- Feb. 8, 2024
Background
Hector Mora sued Marten Transport, Ltd. on behalf of himself and a putative class of current and former truck drivers employed by Marten. The complaint asserted various California wage-and-hour claims and was initially filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court. Marten removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
Mora moved to remand, arguing that Marten had not plausibly established the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a notice of removal initially needs only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. But after Mora made a factual challenge to Marten’s allegations, Marten had the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence—that is, by showing it was more likely than not—that more than $5 million was in controversy.
Marten submitted a declaration stating that 1,398 truck drivers had driven for Marten in California during the relevant period, including approximately 471 current drivers and 927 former drivers. It also stated that the drivers were paid weekly. The court found that Marten’s other calculations relied on unsupported assumptions about the number of weeks worked. For example, Marten assumed that each of the 471 current drivers worked 50 weekly pay periods per year for three years, without evidence supporting that assumption.
The court found that Marten’s calculation for penalties based on untimely payment of wages at separation did not rely on the same unsupported workweek assumption. That calculation totaled $3,337,200. Even if 25 percent in attorney’s fees were added, the total would be $4,171,500, still below the $5 million threshold.
Ruling
The court held that Marten had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that $5 million or more was in controversy. Judge James Donato ruled that the case was improperly removed under CAFA and ordered it remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.