`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 51
`
`
`
`SABRINA L. SHADI, SBN 205405
`NICHOLAS D. POPER, SBN 293900
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
`Telephone: 310.820.8800
`Facsimile: 310.820.8859
`Email:
`sshadi@bakerlaw.com
`
`npoper@bakerlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ARDAGH METAL BEVERAGE USA INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No.:
`GRANT DIAZ, on behalf of himself and
`
`all others similarly situated,
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
`Plaintiff,
`REMOVAL OF ACTION TO
`FEDERAL COURT
`
`[Filed Concurrently with Civil Cover
`Sheet; and Corporate Disclosure
`Statement]
`
`Action Filed: December 6, 2021
`
`
`v.
`ARDAGH METAL BEVERAGE USA,
`INC., a Delaware corporation; and
`DOES 1-50, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and
`1446, ARDAGH METAL BEVERAGE USA INC. (“Defendant”), removes the
`action filed by GRANT DIAZ (“Plaintiff”) in the Superior Court of the State of
`California, in and for the County of Solano, and captioned Case No. FCS057518, to
`the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`1.
`This is a civil action over which this Court has original subject matter
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§
`1441 and 1446 because it is a civil action that satisfies the requirements stated in
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 51
`
`the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), codified in part at 28 U.S.C. §
`1332(d).
`2.
`This Court is in the judicial district and division embracing the place
`where the state court case was brought and is pending. Specifically, the United
`States District Court for the Eastern District of California embraces Solano County.
`Thus, this Court is the district court to which this case is properly removed. See 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(a).
`THE ACTION & TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`3.
`On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against
`Defendant in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of
`Solano, Case No. FCS057518 (the “State Court Action”). Plaintiff filed the
`complaint as a putative class action.
`4.
`On December 16, 2021, Defendant was served with a copy of the
`Summons and Complaint.
`5.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this removal is timely because
`Defendant filed this removal within 30 days of its receipt of a copy of the Summons
`and Complaint in the State Court Action.
`6.
`Exhibit “A” constitutes all process, pleadings, and orders served on
`Defendant in the State Court Action.
`7.
`Defendant filed its Answer in the State Court Action on January 14,
`2022. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Answer is attached as Exhibit “B”.
`CAFA JURISDICTION
`8.
`Basis of Original Jurisdiction. This Court has original jurisdiction of
`this action under CAFA. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and (5) provide that a district court
`shall have original jurisdiction over a class action with one hundred (100) or more
`putative class members, in which the matter in controversy, in the aggregate,
`
`- 2 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 51
`
`exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000. Section 1332(d)(2) further provides that
`any member of the putative class must be a citizen of a state different from any
`defendant.
`9.
`As set forth below, this is a civil action over which this Court has
`original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because it is a civil action filed as a
`class action involving more than 100 members; the amount in controversy exceeds
`the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, based on the allegations that
`Plaintiff set forth in the Complaint; Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different
`states; and no Defendant is a state, state official, or government entity.
`DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
`10. CAFA’s diversity requirement is satisfied 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). The citizenship of the parties is determined by their citizenship status
`at the action’s commencement. See Mann v. City of Tucson, 782 F. 2d 790, 794 (9th
`Cir. 1986). As the Ninth Circuit held, “[a] party’s allegation of minimal diversity
`may be based on ‘information and belief.’ [citations omitted] The pleading ‘need
`not contain evidentiary submissions.’” Ehrman v. Cox Communications, 932 F.3d
`1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019) *2 (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v.
`Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84 (2014)).
`11. Plaintiff’s Citizenship. As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff “was and
`currently is a California resident residing in the State of California.” Complaint, ¶ 8.
`For diversity purposes, a person is a “citizen” of the state in which he or she is
`domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.
`1983). Residence is prima facie evidence of domicile. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
`Co. v. Dyer, 19 F. 3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Plaintiff is a citizen
`of the State of California.
`12. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA Inc.’s Citizenship. Pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(c), “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by
`
`- 3 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 51
`
`which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of
`business.” The United States Supreme Court has concluded that a corporation’s
`“principal place of business” is “where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and
`coordinate the corporation’s activities,” or its “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
`559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). “[I]n practice,” a corporation’s “nerve center” should
`“normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters.” Id.
`13. Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware. Pursuant to the
`Hertz nerve center test, Defendant has its principal place of business in the State of
`Illinois. Defendant’s corporate headquarters is located at 8770 W Bryn Mawr Ave.,
`8th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60631, where the majority of its officers direct, control,
`and coordinate its corporate activities. Accordingly, Defendant is a citizen of the
`states of Delaware and Illinois.
`14. Doe Defendants. Although Plaintiff has also named fictitious
`defendants “DOES 1-50,” the presence of Doe defendants has no bearing on
`diversity with respect to removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (“In determining
`whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction under section
`1332(a) of this title, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall
`be disregarded.”); Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir.
`1980) (unnamed defendants need not join in the removal petition). Thus, the
`existence of Doe defendants 1 through 50 does not deprive this Court of
`jurisdiction.
`15. Minimal Diversity. Defendant has met the minimal diversity of
`citizenship required by CAFA, inasmuch as Plaintiff (who is a member of the
`putative class) is a citizen of California and Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and
`Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
`16. Size of the Putative Class. CAFA provides that district courts shall not
`have jurisdiction over actions “where the number of members of all proposed
`plaintiff classes in the aggregate is less than 100.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5). Here,
`
`- 4 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 5 of 51
`
`Plaintiff has alleged and seeks to serve as a class representative of the following
`putative class: “All non-exempt employees who work or worked for Defendants in
`California, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint
`through the date of trial.” Complaint, ¶ 42. Four years prior to Plaintiff’s filing of
`the Complaint is December 6, 2017. During this time period, Defendant employed
`approximately 157 individuals as non-exempt employees in California. Therefore,
`per the Complaint allegations, the putative class size is at least 157.
`AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY UNDER CAFA
`17. Removal is appropriate when it is more likely than not that the amount
`in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Here, that amount is
`$5,000,000, in the aggregate. See, e.g., Cohn v. PetsMart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839-
`40 (9th Cir. 2002). In determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds
`$5,000,000, the Court must presume Plaintiff will prevail on each and every one of
`his claims. Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp.
`2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002), citing Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092,
`1096 (11th Cir. 1994) (the amount in controversy analysis presumes that “plaintiff
`prevails on liability”) and Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989 F.2d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 1993)
`(“the amount in controversy is not measured by the low end of an open-ended
`claim, but rather by reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated”).
`18. Here, Plaintiff does not specifically allege any amount of damages or
`recoverable penalties in the Complaint, nor does he allege that the aggregate
`amount in controversy is less than $5,000,000. Therefore, Defendant “need include
`only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
`threshold.” Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 84 (holding defendants need not submit
`“evidence” establishing CAFA jurisdiction in their removal papers; rather,
`defendants only need to provide “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
`removal”); see also Al-Najjar v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., No. CV 17-
`6166 PSG (FFMx), 2017 WL 4862067, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2017).
`
`- 5 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 6 of 51
`
`19. Plaintiff’s Complaint pleads causes of action for: (1) failure to pay all
`minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) meal period violations;
`(4) rest period violations; (5) wage statement violations; (6) waiting time penalties;
`and (7) unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §
`17200 et seq. See Complaint. Plaintiff seeks recovery of compensatory damages,
`including unpaid wages, overtime, and premium pay, consequential damages,
`general and special damages, liquidated damages, statutory and civil penalties,
`restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit,
`attorneys’ fees, and “[s]uch other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”
`See Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 55, 61, 64, 68, 75, 81, 85, 87, and Prayer for Relief.
`20. Amount in Controversy. Without conceding that Plaintiff or the
`putative class members are entitled to or could recover damages in the amount or
`manner alleged, or at all, the amount in controversy in this putative class action
`conservatively exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.1
`A. Claim No. 1: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages. Plaintiff alleges
`that, “[a]t all relevant times,” Defendant had a “uniform and unlawful practice of
`rounding time entries to the nearest 15-minute interval” which resulted in Plaintiff
`and the putative class not being paid for all hours actually worked. Complaint,
`¶¶ 46, 52. Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of Defendant’s “practice and
`uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee
`compensation,” Plaintiff and the putative class are entitled to recover unpaid
`minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, statutory penalties, and attorneys’
`fees and costs. Id. at ¶¶ 54-55. Plaintiff also seeks to recover, under Labor Code
`§ 1197.1, civil penalties, restitution of wages, and liquidated damages in the amount
`of $100 for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is
`
`1 This Notice does not concede and should not be construed as evidence that
`Defendant violated the legal rights of Plaintiff or any putative class members. The
`argument and the calculations of potential damages presented here are based on the
`allegations in the Complaint and solely for purposes of this Notice.
`
`- 6 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 7 of 51
`
`underpaid and $250 for each subsequent pay period for which the employee is
`underpaid. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30 and Prayer for Relief.
`During the period of December 6, 2017 to the present, approximately 157
`putative class members worked a total of 18,247 pay periods.
`Using the total number of pay periods during the one-year statutory period
`for civil penalties and the alleged civil penalty of $100 for the initial violation and
`$250 per pay period for each subsequent violation, the amount in controversy for
`this claim is approximately $1,548,050 (calculated as: [$100 penalty for each initial
`violation x 123 pay periods] + [$250 penalty for each subsequent violation x 6,143
`pay periods]). This calculation is highly conservative and almost certainly
`significantly understates the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff’s claim
`because it is limited to civil penalties and does not even take into account Plaintiff’s
`alleged entitlement to recover unpaid minimum wages or liquidated damages.
`B.
`Claim No. 2: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages. Plaintiff alleges
`that Defendant had a “uniform policy/practice of rounding time entries to the
`nearest 15-minute interval” which resulted in Plaintiff and the putative class not
`being paid all overtime wages owed. Complaint, ¶¶ 46, 52, 60. Plaintiff also
`alleges that “[a]t all relevant times, Defendant consistently paid non-exempt
`employees non-discretionary compensation as well as overtime pay, however these
`forms of compensation were uniformly omitted when calculating non-exempt
`employees’ regular rate of pay for overtime purposes.” Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff alleges
`that, as a result of Defendant’s “uniform failure” to include all forms of
`remuneration when calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime, the
`putative class was not paid all overtime wages owed. Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff, on
`behalf of himself and the putative class, seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
`interest, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at ¶ 61.
`During the period of December 6, 2017 to the present, approximately 157
`putative class members worked a total of 18,247 workweeks. The putative class
`
`- 7 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 8 of 51
`
`typically worked full-time schedules and regularly worked up to 12 hours per shift.
`The average hourly rate of pay among this group is approximately $33.45.
`Assuming, for purposes of this removal only, that each putative class
`member was not paid 1 hour of overtime wages per workweek, the amount in
`controversy for this claim is approximately $915,543 (calculated as: 1 hour of
`overtime × 18,247 workweeks × [33.45 x 1.5] per hour). Defendant’s conservative
`assumption is reasonable because it assumes employees were not paid for just 1
`hour of overtime per workweek due to rounding and does not even take into
`account Plaintiff’s allegations regarding unpaid double time or underpaid overtime
`due to Defendant’s regular rate formula.2
`C.
`Claim No. 3: Meal Period Violations. Plaintiff’s Third Cause of
`Action for meal periods violations alleges that “at all relevant times,” Plaintiff and
`the putative class members did not receive uninterrupted first meal periods before
`the end of the fifth hour of work. Complaint, ¶ 31. Plaintiff further alleges that
`when Plaintiff and the putative class members worked in excess of 10 hours in a
`shift, “which was a regular occurrence,” they did not receive timely second meal
`periods. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the putative class members were not provided
`meal period premiums for missed or non-compliant meal periods. Id. Plaintiff
`alleges that “due to Defendant’s uniform meal period policies and/or practices,”
`Defendant violated Labor Code §§ 226.7, 510, 516, and the applicable IWC Wage
`Orders. Id. at 32.
`During the period of December 6, 2017 to the present, approximately 157
`putative class members worked a total of 72,988 shifts. The putative class typically
`worked full-time schedules and regularly worked up to 12 hours per shift. The
`average hourly rate of pay among this group is approximately $33.45.
`
`
`2 Assuming the putative class was not paid 1.5 hours of overtime per workweek, the
`amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s overtime claim would be approximately
`$1,373,315 (calculated as: 1.5 hours of overtime × 18,247 workweeks × [$33.45 x
`1.5]).
`
`- 8 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 9 of 51
`
`Although Defendant denies all liability, assuming for purposes of this
`analysis only a 30% violation rate for meal periods, the amount in controversy for
`this claim would be approximately $732,527 (calculated as: $33.45 average hourly
`rate x [30% violation rate x 72,988 shifts]). Plaintiff’s unqualified allegations of a
`“policy or practice” of failing to provide meal periods reasonably justifies a rate of
`at least 30%. See Avila v. Rue21, Inc., 432 F.Supp.3d 1175, 1189 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
`(“[d]istrict courts have found . . . that violation rates of 25% to 60% can be
`reasonably assumed as a matter of law based on ‘pattern and practice’
`allegation[s].”); Bryant v. NCR Corporation, 284 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1151 (S.D. Cal.
`2018) (finding reasonable a meal break violation rate of 60%—3 meal break
`violations a week—and a rest break violation rate of 30%—3 rest break violations a
`week); see also Mejia v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2015 WL 2452755, at *4 (C.D.
`Cal. May 21, 2015) (finding allegations of “uniform policies, practices and
`procedures” allowed for a 100% violation rate).
`D. Claim No. 4: Rest Period Violations. Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of
`Action for rest periods violations alleges that, at all relevant times, “Defendant
`failed to provide any 10-minute rest periods for every 4 hours or major fraction
`thereof” and that putative class members were “routinely” unable to take second
`rest periods and third rest periods. Complaint, ¶ 33 (emphasis added). Plaintiff
`alleges that Defendant did not provide compliant rest periods because, among other
`reasons, putative class members were not relieved of all duties during rest periods
`and because only a single rest period was provided which was combined with a
`meal period. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34. Plaintiff further alleges that “[e]ach time Plaintiff and
`other non-exempt employees were unable to take a compliant rest period,
`Defendant failed and continues to fail to adequately pay rest period premium
`payments at the ‘regular rate of pay.’” Id. at ¶ 35.
`During the period of December 6, 2017 to the present, approximately 157
`putative class members worked a total of 72,988 shifts. The putative class typically
`
`- 9 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 10 of 51
`
`worked full-time schedules and regularly worked up to 12 hours per shift. The
`average hourly rate of pay among this group is approximately $33.45.
`Although Defendant denies all liability, assuming for purposes of this
`analysis Although Defendant denies all liability, assuming for purposes of this
`analysis only a 60% violation rate for rest periods, the amount in controversy for
`this claim would be approximately $1,465,053 (calculated as: $33.45 average
`hourly rate x [60% violation rate x 72,988 shifts]). This is a conservative
`calculation given that the Complaint makes broad allegations that put every rest
`period at issue and alleges missed first, second, and third rest periods.
`E.
`Claim No. 5: Wage Statement Violations. Plaintiff’s Fifth
`Cause of Action for wage statement violations alleges that Defendant “issued and
`continue[s] to issue” wage statements to the putative class “which are inadequate
`under Labor Code Section 226(a).” Complaint, ¶ 71. Plaintiff alleges that as a
`result of the above-mentioned allegations for failure to pay for all overtime wages,
`meal period premiums, and rest period premiums, Defendant’s wage statements fail
`to include the required information, “including, but not limited to, the the gross
`wages earned and net wages earned in violation of Labor Code section 226(a).” Id.
`at ¶ 72. Plaintiff also alleges that the wage statements issued to the putative class
`“fail to state the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer in
`violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(8).” Id. at ¶ 73. Plaintiff alleges that
`Defendant’s failure to comply with Section 226(a) was “knowing and intentional.”
`Id. at ¶ 74.
`Plaintiff seeks to recover penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226(e) of $50
`per employee for the initial pay period in which a wage statement violation
`occurred and $100 per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not
`exceeding the maximum aggregate penalty of $4,000 per employee. Id. at ¶ 74; see
`also Lab. Code § 226(e). Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to recover civil penalties
`under Labor Code § 226.3 for violations of Labor Code Section 226(a) “in the
`
`- 10 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 11 of 51
`
`amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per employee per violation in an initial
`violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per employee for each violation in a
`subsequent citation, for which the employer fails to provide the employee a wage
`deduction statement or fails to keep the required in subdivision (a) of Section 226.’”
`Id. at ¶¶ 5, 39-40. A one-year limitations period applies to this cause of action
`seeking penalties. Holak v. K Mart Corp., 2015 WL 2384895 at *6 (E.D. Cal. May
`19, 2015) (observing that the “limitations period for a 226(e) claim seeking
`statutory penalties is one year”).
`During the relevant period of December 6, 2020 to the present, Defendant
`employed approximately 123 individuals in California as non-exempt employees.
`These 123 individuals worked a total of approximately 6,266 pay periods.
`Using the total number of pay periods worked by each of the 123 individuals
`and the statutory penalty under Labor Code § 226(e) of $50 for each initial
`violation and $100 for each subsequent violation (capped at $4,000 per individual),
`based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the amount in controversy for penalties under
`Labor Code § 226(e) is approximately $444,150 (calculated as: [$50 penalty for
`each initial violation x 123 pay periods] + [$100 penalty for each subsequent
`violation x 6,143 pay periods]). Conservatively using only the “initial” violation
`rate under Labor Code § 226.3, the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s claim for
`civil penalties under Section 226.3 is approximately 1,566,500 (calculated as: $250
`penalty for each violation x 6,266 pay periods). Accordingly, the total amount in
`controversy for Plaintiff’s wage statement claim is $2,010,650.
`Defendant’s wage statement assumptions are reasonable in light of the fact
`that, among other reasons, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wage statements “fail
`to state the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer in violation of
`Labor Code Section 226(a)(8),” putting every wage statement at issue.
`F.
`Claim No. 6: Waiting Time Penalties. Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of
`Action for waiting time penalties alleges that Defendant willfully failed to pay
`
`- 11 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 12 of 51
`
`Plaintiff and the other putative class members did not receive all wages owed to
`them, including minimum and overtime wages, meal period premiums, and rest
`period premiums, upon separation of employment. Complaint ¶¶ 41, 80. Plaintiff
`further alleges that he and the other putative class members are entitled recover
`thirty (30) days wages pursuant to Labor Code § 203. Id. at ¶ 81. The applicable
`statute of limitations for penalties under Labor Code § 203 is three years. See
`Montecino v. Spherion Corp., 427 F.Supp.2d 965, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
`During the applicable time period of December 6, 2018 to the present,
`approximately 32 putative class members separated from their employment with
`Defendant. While putative class members typically worked 12-hour shifts, for
`purposes of determining the amount in controversy Defendant conservatively
`assumes that these 32 putative class members worked only 10 hours per shift.
`Accordingly, the amount in controversy for this claim would be approximately
`$292,566 (calculated as: 32 separated employees x 10 hours x 30 days x respective
`hourly rate of pay). Defendant’s assumptions are reasonable in light of the fact that
`Plaintiff’s waiting time penalties claim piggybacks onto his unpaid wages, unpaid
`overtime, and meal and rest period claims, each of which assert widespread
`violations. See Ramos v. Schenker, Inc., 2018 WL 5779978, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
`1, 2018) (“[a plaintiff's] allegations of unpaid wages are implicit allegations of
`maximum damages for waiting time penalties.”).
`G. Attorneys’ Fees
`Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of attorneys’
`fees on all causes of action asserted in the Complaint. These attorney fees may be
`included in determining the amount in controversy. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia,
`142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) (“where an underlying statute authorizes an
`award of attorneys’ fees...such fees may be included in the amount in
`controversy”); see also Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417-18
`(9th Cir. 2018) (the amount in controversy includes all relief claimed at the time of
`
`- 12 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 13 of 51
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`Attorneys’ Fees:
`
`
`
`removal to which Plaintiff would be entitled if he prevails.). Additionally, the
`Ninth Circuit has confirmed that future attorneys’ fees must be included in an
`amount in controversy calculation under CAFA. Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of
`Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018). “[I]t is well established the Ninth Circuit
`‘has established 25% of the common fund as a benchmark award for attorney
`fees.’” Jasso v. Money Mart Express, Inc., 2012 WL 699465, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
`1, 2012) (citing Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998).
`Accordingly, for purposes of this removal only, Defendant conservatively
`assumes that attorneys’ fees in this matter would amount to at least 25% of the
`award of attorneys’ fees on those claims in which Plaintiff seeks fees, amounting to
`$1,741,097 (calculated as: 25% x $6,964,389).
`21. Total Amount in Controversy. Based solely on the causes of action
`considered above, the class-wide amount in controversy, conservatively estimated,
`is at least $8,705,486. This showing as to the amount in controversy satisfies the
`standard for removal. Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 81 (“[A] defendant’s notice of
`removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy
`exceeds the jurisdictional threshold; the notice need not contain evidentiary
`submissions.”).
`22. Based on the foregoing, the aggregate amount in controversy of
`Plaintiff’s six causes of action above is as follows:
`Claim
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Penalties Only):
`Failure to Pay Overtime Wages:
`Meal Period Violations:
`Rest Period Violations:
`Wage Statement Violations:
`Waiting Time Penalties:
`
`Subtotal:
`
`Amount in Controversy
`$1,548,050
`$915,543
`$732,527
`$1,465,053
`$2,010,650
`$292,566
`$6,964,389
`$1,741,097
`$8,705,486
`
`TOTAL:
`- 13 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`Dated: January 18, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`23. Amount in Controversy for Remaining Claims. The amount in
`controversy exceeds the $5,000,000 CAFA threshold, without taking into account
`Plaintiff’s additional claims for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
`restitution, and injunctive relief (among other forms of relief not calculated above).
`Even though Defendant has not assigned any particular amounts to these claims,
`assignment of any sum only further increases the amount in controversy in excess
`of $5,000,000.
`24. Accordingly, removal of this action is proper under CAFA.
`NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES
`25. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Defendant is filing a
`Disclosure Statement concurrently with this Notice of Removal.
`NOTICE
`26. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant is providing written
`notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to Plaintiff and is filing a copy of this
`Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California,
`in and for the County of Solano.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Nicholas D. Poper
`SABRINA L. SHADI
`NICHOLAS D. POPER
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ARDAGH METAL BEVERAGE USA INC.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 15 of 51
`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 15 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00056 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 16 of 51
`
`~1,bf9~fe~P.
`DEC 06 2021
`sy--'-__ a-->&JVAS~au __ ez_~---
`
`oePuTV CLERK . .
`
`1 BOKHOURLAWGROUP,P.C.
`Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq., CA Bai; No. 285256
`2 mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
`1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
`3
`Los Angeles; California 90067
`4 Tel:(3l0) 975-1493; Fax:(310) 675-0861
`
`5 FALAKASSALAW,P.C.
`Joshua S. Falakassa, CA Bar No. 295045
`6 Josh@falakassalaw.com
`7 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`8 Tel: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-.0868
`
`9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes
`
`10
`
`11
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SOLANO
`
`12
`
`GRANT DIAZ on behalf of himself and all CASE NO.:
`13 others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,