Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 64
`
`Jason E. Barsanti (SBN 235807)
`jbarsanti@cozen.com
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619-234-1700
`Facsimile: 619-234-7831
`Ethan W. Chernin (SBN 273906)
`echernin@cozen.com
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone: 310-393-4000
`Facsimile: 310-394-4700
`Brett Greving (SBN 270883)
`bgreving@cozen.com
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-644-0914
`Facsimile: 415-644-0978
`Attorneys for Defendant
`CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.:
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
`REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(d)(2), 1441,
`1446, AND 1453
`
`
`Complaint Filed: February 23, 2022
`
`Removed: May 12, 2022
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`))
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`RICHARD MARIN, SAMANTHA LOPEZ,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`vs.
`
`CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
`CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
`And DOES 1 - 50, inclusive,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 64
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I. PLEADINGS, PROCESS AND ORDERS ............................................................. 1
`II. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION ..................................................................... 1
`III. VENUE IS PROPER ............................................................................................... 2
`IV. DEFENDANT HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL ..... 2
`A.
`This Removal Petition is Timely ............................................................... 2
`B.
`The Procedural Requirements of Removal Are Met.................................. 2
`V. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER CAFA .......................................... 3
`A.
`Plaintiffs Assert a Class Action Against Defendant .................................. 4
`B.
`The Number of Putative Class Members Exceeds 100 .............................. 4
`C. Defendant is not a Governmental Entity .................................................... 5
`D.
`There Is Diversity Between At Least One Class Member
`And Any One Defendant ............................................................................ 5
`The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5,000,000 ..................................... 6
`E.
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-i-
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 64
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Bodner v. Oreck Direct, LLC,
`No. C 0604756, 2006 WL 2925691 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2006) ................................ 4
`Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens,
`135 S.Ct. 547 (2014) .................................................................................................. 3
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 13
`Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
`130 U.S. 1181 (2010) ................................................................................................ 5
`Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
`199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ................................................................. 6, 10
`Lew v. Moss,
`797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) ..................................................................................... 5
`Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
`627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 6
`Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 13
`Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.,
`526 U.S. 344 (1999)................................................................................................... 2
`Rippee v. Boston Market Corp.,
`408 F. Supp. 2d 982 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ....................................................................... 6
`Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,
`133 S.Ct. 1345 (2013) .............................................................................................. 13
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dyer,
`19 F.3d 514 (10th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................... 5
`Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-ii-
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 64
`
`State Cases
`Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.,
`23 Cal. 4th 163 (2000) ............................................................................................... 7
`Pineda v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`50 Cal. 4th 1389 (2010) ........................................................................................... 11
`Federal Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 84(a) ............................................................................................................ 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ......................................................................................................... 1, 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) .................................................................................................... 5
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B) .............................................................................................. 3
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) ............................................................................................... 1, 3
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) .......................................................................................... 5, 6
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5) ................................................................................................... 3
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B) .............................................................................................. 5
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6) ............................................................................................... 3, 7
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 ............................................................................................................. 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1441 ....................................................................................................... 1, 14
`28 U.S.C. § 1446 ......................................................................................................... 1, 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) .................................................................................................... 2, 3
`28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) ........................................................................................................ 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) ........................................................................................................ 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1453 ..................................................................................................... 1, 2, 6
`Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 29 U.S.C. § 1332(d) ....................................... passim
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-iii-
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 64
`
`State Statutes
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ..................................................................................... 1
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 ..................................................................................... 7
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(a) ....................................................................................... 11
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a) ....................................................................................... 12
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382 ............................................................................................. 4
`California Labor Code § 201 .................................................................................... 1, 12
`California Labor Code § 202 .......................................................................................... 1
`California Labor Code § 204 .................................................................................... 1, 12
`California Labor Code § 226 ........................................................................................ 12
`California Labor Code § 226(a) ...................................................................................... 1
`California Labor Code § 226.7 ....................................................................................... 1
`California Labor Code § 510 .......................................................................................... 1
`California Labor Code § 512(a) ...................................................................................... 1
`California Labor Code § 1174(d) ................................................................................... 1
`California Labor Code § 1194 ........................................................................................ 1
`California Labor Code § 1197 ........................................................................................ 1
`California Labor Code § 1197.1 ..................................................................................... 1
`California Labor Code § 1198 ........................................................................................ 1
`California Labor Code § 2698 ........................................................................................ 1
`California Labor Code § 2800 ........................................................................................ 1
`California Labor Code § 2802 ........................................................................................ 1
`California Unfair Competition Law ................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-iv-
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 6 of 64
`
`Rules
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 6(a)(1)(C) .......................................................... 2
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a) ................................................................... 3
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 ..................................................................... 2
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 ..................................................................... 3
`Regulations
`Senate Judiciary Committee Report, S. REP. 109-14 ................................................ 6, 7
`Other Authorities
`Lara v. Trimac Transp. Servs. Inc.,
`No. CV 10- 4280-GHK ............................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-v-
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 7 of 64
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
`CORPORATION (“CMSC” or “Defendant”), hereby removes to this Court the state
`court action described below, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(d)(2), 1441, 1446,
`and 1453. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
`I.
`PLEADINGS, PROCESS AND ORDERS
`1.
`On February 23, 2022, this putative class action was commenced and is
`currently pending against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of
`Fresno as Case No. 22CECG00573, entitled RICHARD MARIN, SAMANTHA LOPEZ,
`on behalf of the general public as private attorney general, Plaintiffs, vs. CARGILL
`MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 - 50,
`inclusive, Defendant.
`2.
`The Complaint asserted the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay
`wages including overtime as required by California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194; (2)
`failure to provide meal periods as required by California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512 and
`IWC Wage Orders; (3) failure to provide rest periods as required by California Labor
`Code §§ 226.7, 512; (4) failure to pay timely wages as required by California Labor
`Code § 203; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by
`California Labor Code § 226; (6) failure to provide day of rest as required by California
`Labor Code §§ 551 and 552; (7) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses as
`required by California Labor Code § 2802; (8) failure to accurately record and pay sick
`leave as required by California Labor Code § 246; (9) unlawful deductions pursuant to
`California Labor Code § 221; and (10) violation of California Business & Professions
`Code §§ 17200, et. seq. (Exhibit A, Complaint.)
`II. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION
`3.
`This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class
`Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) 29 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which vests the United
`States district courts with original jurisdiction of any civil action: (a) that is a class
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-1-
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 8 of 64
`
`action with a putative class of more than a hundred (100) members; (b) in which any
`member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; and
`(c) in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive
`of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d). CAFA authorizes removal of such actions in
`accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1453. As set forth below, this case meets all of
`CAFA’s requirements for removal and is timely and properly removed by the filing of
`this Notice.
`4.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a notice of removal must: (1) be signed
`pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) contain a “short and
`plain statement of the grounds for removal,” and (3) be accompanied by a copy of all
`process, pleadings, and orders served on Defendant in the action.
`III. VENUE IS PROPER
`5. With respect to this petition for removal, venue is proper in this Court
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 84(b), 1391 and 1446, this action was originally brought
`in the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno (Case No. 22CECG00573).
`IV. DEFENDANT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL
`This Removal Petition is Timely
`A.
`6.
`Plaintiffs personally served Defendant with the Summons and Complaint
`on April 15, 2022, as is attested by Plaintiffs’ Notice of Service of Process in Exhibit
`B. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule
`6(a)(1)(C), this Notice of Removal is timely filed as it is filed within thirty (30) days
`after Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint and within one (1) year
`after commencement of this action. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing,
`Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 356 (1999) (30-day removal period runs from the service of the
`summons and complaint).
`The Procedural Requirements of Removal Are Met
`B.
`7.
`On May 12, 2022, prior to the filing of Defendant’s Notice of Removal,
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-2-
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 9 of 64
`
`Defendant filed and served an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint in Fresno Superior
`Court. A true and correct copy of the Answer and the accompanying proof of service is
`attached as Exhibit C.
`8.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings and orders
`served upon Defendant are attached hereto as Exhibit D to this Notice of Removal (with
`the exception of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit A.)
`9.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is being
`served upon counsel for Plaintiffs and a “Notice to State Court and Adverse Parties of
`Removal of Action” (to include a copy of this Notice of Removal and all Exhibits) will
`be promptly filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court in Fresno County, and served on
`all other parties to this action.
`V. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER CAFA
`10.
`In its decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S.Ct.
`547 (2014), the United States Supreme Court clarified the standards applicable to
`notices of removal in CAFA cases, confirming a liberal standard in favor of removing
`Defendant. Specifically the Supreme Court found that the similarity of language
`between the removal statute and Rule 8(a) can only mean that the same liberal pleading
`standards applied to complaints must also apply to notices of removal. Id. The Supreme
`Court also held in Dart that a removing defendant is not required to include evidence
`with its pleading in order to establish that the elements of federal subject matter
`jurisdiction are met. Id. at 552-553. Only if the Court or another party challenges
`jurisdiction should the Court require a removing defendant to prove, under the
`applicable “preponderance” standard, that the jurisdictional requirements are met. “In
`sum, as specified in § 1446(a), a defendant’s notice of removal need include only a
`plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
`Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the
`Plaintiffs contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.” Id. at 554. In
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-3-
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 10 of 64
`
`addition, there exists no “presumption against removal” in CAFA cases, because CAFA
`was specifically enacted by Congress “to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions
`in federal court.” Id.
`11. Under CAFA, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over a class
`action if (1) it involves 100 or more putative class members, (2) any class member is a
`citizen of a state different from any defendant, and (3) the aggregated amount in
`controversy exceeds $5 million (exclusive of costs and interest). See 28 U.S.C. §§
`1332(d)(2), d(5), and (d)(6). CAFA applies to certain “class actions,” which the statute
`defines as “any civil action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`or similar State statute.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B).
`Plaintiffs Assert a Class Action Against Defendant
`A.
`12. Plaintiffs clearly bring their lawsuit as a class action. The Complaint
`caption is titled “CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT.” Plaintiffs state in the very first
`paragraph that the case is a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
`§ 382. (Exhibit A, Complaint at Caption and ¶¶ 1, 12.) Accordingly, CAFA applies.
`See Bodner v. Oreck Direct, LLC, No. C 0604756, 2006 WL 2925691, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`Oct. 12, 2006) (CAFA applies where “Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the action is a
`class action, and recites the prerequisites to a class action under . . . California Code of
`Civil Procedure Section 382”).
`The Number of Putative Class Members Exceeds 100
`B.
`13. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all California citizens currently and
`formerly employed by Defendant as non-exempt employees in the State of California
`through the date of class certification. (“Class”) (Exhibit A, Complaint at ¶ 12.)
`14. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Defendant employed an excess of 100
`non-exempt employees during the four year statutory period. (Exhibit A, Complaint at
`¶ 17.) Thus, as defined in the Complaint, the putative class exceeds 100.
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-4-
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 11 of 64
`
`Defendant is not a Governmental Entity
`C.
`15. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B), CAFA does not apply to class actions
`where “primary Defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities
`against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.”
`16. Defendant is a corporation incorporated in Delaware and is not a state, state
`official or other government entity exempt from CAFA.
`There Is Diversity Between At Least One Class Member And Any
`D.
`One Defendant
`17. CAFA’s minimal diversity requirement is satisfied, inter alia, when “any
`member of a class of Plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2)(A); 1453(b). Minimal diversity of citizenship exists here because
`Plaintiffs and Defendant are citizens of different states.
`18. Plaintiffs state that they are residents of California. (Exhibit A, Complaint
`at ¶ 6.) Allegations of residency in a state court complaint can create a rebuttable
`presumption of domicile supporting diversity of citizenship. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747,
`751 (9th Cir. 1986); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 519-
`20 (10th Cir. 1994) (allegation by a party in state court complaint of residency “created
`a presumption of continuing residence in [state] and put the burden of coming forward
`with contrary evidence on the party seeking to prove otherwise”). At the time Plaintiffs
`commenced this action and at the time of removal, Plaintiffs alleged that they both
`resided in the State of California. (Exhibit A, Complaint at ¶ 6.) Therefore, Plaintiffs
`are both citizens of California for diversity purposes.
`19. Conversely, Defendant is not citizen of California. It is a citizen of
`Delaware and Kansas. For diversity purposes, a corporation is deemed a citizen of its
`state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(c)(1). The principal place of business is “where a corporation’s officers direct,
`control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130
`U.S. 1181, 1192-93 (2010). At the time this action was commenced in state court,
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-5-
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 12 of 64
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defendant was, and remains, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`in Kansas, where it has its corporate offices and headquarters and where Defendant’s
`executive and administrative functions are located.
`20. Accordingly, the named Plaintiffs are citizens of a state different from
`Defendant, and diversity exists for purposes of CAFA jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§
`1332(d)(2)(A), 1453.
`The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5,000,0001
`E.
`21. CAFA’s $5,000,000 threshold for the “amount in controversy,” is not the
`same as the amount ultimately recovered. Lara v. Trimac Transp. Servs. Inc., No. CV
`10- 4280-GHK JCx, 2010 WL 3119366, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010). Rather, in
`assessing the amount in controversy, courts must “assume that the allegations of the
`complaint are true and assume that a jury will return a verdict for the Plaintiffs on all
`claims made in the complaint.” Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean
`Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The ultimate inquiry is what amount
`is put “in controversy” by the Plaintiffs’ complaint, not what a defendant will actually
`owe. Rippee v. Boston Market Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 982, 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005). After
`all, “the amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not
`a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Communications,
`Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947,
`956 (10th Cir. 2008)). Additionally, “the amount in controversy is not measured by the
`low end of an open-ended claim, but rather by a reasonable reading of the value of the
`rights being litigated”); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004)
`(stating that “[t]he amount-in-controversy inquiry in the removal context is not confined
`to the face of the complaint”) (citations omitted).
`
`1 The alleged damage calculations set forth in the instant Notice of Removal are provided for purposes
`of removal only and based on the presumption of truth to which Plaintiffs’ allegations are entitled.
`Defendant denies that Plaintiffs or any putative class member is entitled to any relief whatsoever and
`expressly reserves the right to challenge Plaintiffs’ claims and their alleged damages at every stage of
`this case.
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-6-
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 13 of 64
`
`22. Congress intended federal jurisdiction to be appropriate under CAFA “if
`the value of the matter in litigation exceeds $5,000,000 either from the viewpoint of the
`Plaintiffs or the viewpoint of the defendant, and regardless of the type of relief sought
`(e.g., damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief).” Senate Judiciary Committee
`Report, S. REP. 109-14 at 42. In addition, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Report on
`the final version of CAFA makes clear that any doubts regarding the maintenance of
`interstate class actions in state or federal court should be resolved in favor of federal
`jurisdiction. S. REP. 109-14 at 42-43 (“[I]f a federal court is uncertain about whether
`‘all matters in controversy’ in a purported class action ‘do not in the aggregate exceed
`the sum or value of $5,000,000,’ the court should err in favor of exercising jurisdiction
`over the case … [Section 1332(d)] should be read broadly, with a strong preference
`that interstate class actions should be heard in federal court if removed by the
`defendant.” (emphasis added)]
`23.
`In calculating the amount in controversy, the claims of class members may
`be aggregated to determine whether the amount in controversy has been satisfied. 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
`24. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges (without any facts or explanation) that the
`total aggregate amount in controversy is less than the $5,000,000 CAFA jurisdictional
`threshold. (Exhibit A, Complaint at ¶ 4.) However, as demonstrated herein and despite
`the allegation, the Plaintiffs’ allegations, when accepted as true, do place more than
`$5,000,000 in controversy in this lawsuit. By demonstrating that the amount in
`controversy exceeds the CAFA threshold, Defendant in no way concedes the validity
`of Plaintiffs’ claims in any respect or the likelihood that Plaintiffs will obtain class
`certification or recover anything.
`Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action (Final Wages Not Timely Paid)
`25. With respect to their fourth cause of action for waiting time penalties,
`Plaintiffs allege, without qualification, that Defendant “willfully failed and refused to
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-7-
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 14 of 64
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`pay Plaintiffs and the Class members their wages, earned and unpaid, either at the time
`or discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours of their voluntarily leaving the
`Defendant’s employ,” and that these wages include regular and overtime. (Exhibit A,
`Complaint at ¶ 92.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs and the putative
`class members2 for waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203, in the form of
`continued compensation for thirty work days. (Exhibit A, Complaint at ¶¶ 91, 93
`Complaint at Prayer for Relief, Fourth Cause of Action.) The statute of limitations on
`Plaintiffs’ waiting time penalties claim is three years. See Pineda v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`50 Cal. 4th 1389, 1404 (2010); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(a).
`26. Based on a review of Defendant’s employment records, Defendant has had
`at least 1,579 putative class members terminate their employment within the three year
`statute of limitations (either voluntarily or involuntarily.) Using the average rate of pay
`for these employees for the past three years according to Defendant’s pay data, which
`is over $16.55 per hour, as the applicable rate of pay, and assuming a conservative
`average shift length of 8 hours, the amount in controversy for Plaintiffs’ waiting time
`claim is more than $6,271,788, based on the calculation of 1,579 terminated putative
`class members x an average rate of pay of $16.55 per hour x 8 hours x 30 days.
`27. Based on the foregoing, the amount in controversy for Plaintiffs’ claims is
`well in excess of the $5,000,000 CAFA threshold, on the fourth cause of action only,
`not even accounting for the amounts at issue for Plaintiffs’ other nine causes of action.
`28. Thus, the total minimum amount placed in controversy by Plaintiffs’
`Complaint is well over $5,000,000.
`Attorney’s Fees
`29. Attorneys’ fees are also includable in the amount in controversy where the
`underlying statute authorizes an award of fees. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) overruled on other grounds by Standard Fire Ins.
`
`2Plaintiffs confusingly refer to a “Non-Exempt Production Employee class” in this cause of action
`but there is no such class (or subclass) defined in the Complaint. See Complaint, ¶¶ 12-13.
`
`-8-
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 15 of 64
`
`Co. v. Knowles, 133 S.Ct. 1345 (2013). Plaintiffs are seeking attorneys’ fees with
`respect to causes of action one, eight, and ten. (Exhibit A, Complaint at Prayer for
`Relief.) The Ninth Circuit has recognized 25% as an appropriate benchmark for fee
`awards in class action cases. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th
`Cir. 1998). Under that benchmark, and based on the demonstrated amount in
`controversy on the fourth cause of action, it is reasonable to place the attorneys’ fees in
`controversy at a minimum of $1,567,947. Adding that amount to the previously
`calculated minimum value only serves to underscore the conclusion that this case easily
`exceeds the $5,000,000 CAFA threshold.
`VI. CONCLUSION
`30. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims by virtue of the
`Class Action Fairness Act. To the extent that this Court lacks original jurisdiction over
`any of Plaintiffs’ claims, it has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. This action
`is thus properly removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. In the event
`this Court has a question regarding the propriety of this Notice of Removal, Defendant
`requests the opportunity to submit evidence, points and authorities supporting the
`removal of this action.
`WHEREFORE, Defendant removes the above-action to this Court.
`
`
`Dated: May 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jason E. Barsanti
`Jason E. Barsanti
`Ethan Chernin
`Brett Greving
`Attorneys for Defendant
`CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
`CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL\57713540\1
`
`-9-
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 16 of 64
`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 16 of 64
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-at-00345 Document1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 17 o