Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 17
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Brian D. Berry, Bar No. 229893
`Sarah Zenewicz, Bar No. 258068
`One Market
`Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`Tel:
`+1.415.442.1000
`Fax: +1.415.442.1001
`brian.berry@morganlewis.com
`sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Anahi Cruz, Bar No. 324326
`300 South Grand Avenue
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
`Tel:
`+1.213.612.2500
`Fax: +1.213.612.2501
`anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com
`Attorneys for Defendants
`AMAZON.COM INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES
`LLC, AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MICHELE OBRIEN, as an individual and on
`behalf of others similarly situated,,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware
`corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation;
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
`100, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`REMOVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`(Alameda County Superior Court Case No.
`21CV004153)
`Action Filed: Dec. 15, 2021
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`3:22-cv-348
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1453, 1711,
`and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Defendants Amazon.com Inc.,
`Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively “Amazon” or
`“Defendants”), hereby remove to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`California the above-captioned state court action, originally filed as Case No. 21CV004153 in
`Alameda County Superior Court, State of California.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Removal to this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1453 because
`(i) the aggregate number of putative class members is 100 or greater, (ii) diversity of citizenship
`exists between one or more Plaintiffs and one or more Defendants, and (iii) the amount placed in
`controversy by the Complaint exceeds, in the aggregate, $5 million,1 exclusive of interests and
`costs. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1332(d)(5)(B), and 1453.
`2.
`Removal to this Court is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §1332 because (i) Plaintiff’s
`individual claims place more than $75,000 in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, (ii) the
`action involves citizens of different states, and (iii) no properly joined defendant is a citizen of
`California.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`3.
`On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Michele Obrien (“Plaintiff”) filed an unverified
`putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
`Alameda, entitled Michele Obrien, an individual and on behalf others similarly situated, vs.
`Amazon.com Inc., a Delaware corporation; Amazon.com Services LLC, a Delaware limited
`
`1 This Notice of Removal relies on the nature and amount of damages that Plaintiff’s Complaint
`places in controversy. Defendants refer to specific damage amounts and cite comparable cases
`solely to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. But
`Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s claims lack merit and that Defendants are not liable to
`Plaintiff or any member of the putative class for any amount whatsoever. Indeed, “[t]he amount in
`controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of
`[Defendant’s] liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Communs., Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`liability corporation; Amazon Web Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through
`100, inclusive, Case No. 21CV004153.
`4.
`On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendants personally with the Summons,
`Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package,
`and ADR Stipulation on Amazon. Copies of these documents, as well as the Proofs of Service,
`are attached as Exhibits A-G to the Declaration of Brian D. Berry (“Berry Decl.”) in support of
`Defendants’ Notice of Removal.
`5.
`In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action on behalf of herself and
`members of the following putative class:
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`“all current and former employees of Amazon, aged 40 or older,
`who worked at Amazon warehouses or fulfillment centers in
`California and who have been or continue to be subjected to, or
`had to meet, any policy or practice of Amazon regarding ‘rate of
`production’ for their work and/or work production quotas during
`the period from December 15, 2017 to the present[.]”
`
`Berry Decl. Ex. A, Compl. at ¶ 34.
`6.
`The Complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) Age Discrimination in violation
`of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq.);
`(2) Failure to Prevent or Correct Discrimination under FEHA (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k)); and
`(3) Unfair Business Practices (violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200, et seq.).
`7.
`For purposes of this removal only, Amazon assumes the truth of Plaintiff’s
`allegations.
`
`III.
`
`REMOVAL IS TIMELY
`8.
`On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff served the Complaint through Amazon’s
`registered agent for service of process. See Berry Decl. ¶¶ 2, Exs. E-G. This Notice of Removal is
`timely because Amazon filed it within thirty days of service of the Summons and Complaint. 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1446(b), 1453; Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354
`(1999) (“[I]f the summons and complaint are served together, the 30-day period for removal runs
`at once.”).
`
`- 3 -
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`IV.
`
`THIS COURT HAS ORIGINAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER
`CAFA.
`
`The Complaint purports to state claims on behalf of Plaintiff and members of a
`9.
`putative class. Compl. ¶ 2. Thus, removal based on CAFA diversity jurisdiction is proper under
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) if: (i) the amount placed in controversy by the Complaint exceeds, in the
`aggregate, $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, (ii) diversity of citizenship exists between
`one or more plaintiffs and one or more defendants, and (ii) the aggregate number of putative class
`members is 100 or greater. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1332(d)(5)(B), and 1453. As explained
`below, Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies these CAFA standards.2
`A.
`The Proposed Class Consists of More Than 100 Members.
`Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and “all current and former employees
`10.
`of Amazon, aged 40 or older, who worked at Amazon warehouses or fulfillment centers in
`California and who have been or continue to be subjected to, or had to meet, any policy or
`practice of Amazon regarding ‘rate of production’ for their work and/or work production quotas,
`during the period from December 15, 2017 to the present.” Compl. ¶ 34.
`11.
`Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he members of the class exceed 1,000 persons[.]” Compl.
`¶ 36; see also Declaration of Nicole Bruno (“Bruno Decl.”) ¶ 3.
`12.
`Thus, the aggregate number of class members exceeds the jurisdictional threshold
`of 100 people. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B).3
`B.
`Amazon and Plaintiff Are Not Citizens of the Same State.
`To satisfy CAFA’s diversity requirement, a party seeking removal must plead that
`13.
`one putative class member is a citizen of a different state than one defendant (i.e., so-called
`
`2 Amazon does not concede, and reserves the right to contest, Plaintiff’s allegations that this
`action may proceed as a class action. In addition, Amazon does not concede and reserves the right
`to contest that any of Plaintiff’s allegations constitute a cause of action against it under applicable
`California law.
`3 Amazon reserves the right to supplement or provide the Court with additional briefing or
`information necessary to appropriately assess CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements or traditional
`diversity requirements with respect to the named Plaintiff. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265
`F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a party may “cure[] its defective allegations…by
`amending its notice of removal.”).
`
`- 4 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`minimum diversity). 20 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg.,
`Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d
`1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that CAFA provides expanded original diversity
`jurisdiction for class actions meeting the minimal diversity requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
`1332(d)(2)).
`“An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled . . .” Boon v.
`14.
`Allstate Ins. Co., 229 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1019 (C.D. Cal 2002) (citing Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857).
`For purposes of diversity, citizenship is determined by the individual’s domicile when the lawsuit
`is filed. Lew v. Moss, 797 F. 2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986). Evidence of continuing residence
`creates a presumption of domicile. Washington v. Havensa LLC, 654 F.3d 340, 345 (3rd Cir.
`2011).
`
`Plaintiff admits that she “resides in Highland, California.” Compl. ¶ 7. The
`15.
`Complaint does not allege any alternate state citizenship. See generally Compl. Amazon’s
`records show that Plaintiff’s last known home address is in California. Bruno Decl. ¶ 4.
`Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of California for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
`16. Moreover, the Complaint pleads claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals
`who worked for Amazon in California. Compl. ¶ 2. Thus, at least one putative class member is a
`citizen of California.
`17.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of
`every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state
`where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A corporation’s “principal
`place of business” is where its “officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities
`. . . [I]n practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters-
`provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the
`‘nerve center,’ and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meeting[.]” See
`Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).
`18.
`Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`State of Delaware. Declaration of Zane Brown (“Brown Decl.”) ¶ 4. Its principal place of
`- 5 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`business and corporate headquarters is in Seattle, Washington, where its officers direct, control,
`and coordinate corporate activities. Id. Similarly, Defendant Web Services, Inc. is a corporation
`organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Id. ¶ 5. Its principal place of business and
`corporate headquarters is in Seattle, Washington, where its officers direct, control, and coordinate
`corporate activities. Id. Thus, Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc are
`citizens of Delaware and Washington. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
`19.
`Under CAFA, a limited liability company is deemed to be a citizen of the state
`under whose laws it is organized and a citizen of the state where it has its principal place of
`business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10). Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is a limited liability
`company organized under the laws of Delaware. Brown Decl. ¶ 3. Its headquarters are in Seattle,
`Washington, where its officers direct, coordinate and control its business operations. Id. Thus,
`Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is a citizen of Delaware and Washington. 28 U.S.C. §
`1332(d)(10).
`For purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332, courts disregard the
`20.
`citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). The citizenship of
`“Does 1-100” named in the Complaint is therefore immaterial to the jurisdiction inquiry.
`21.
`Thus, the Complaint satisfies CAFA’s minimal diversity requirement because
`Plaintiff and some other class members are citizens of California and Defendants are citizens of
`Delaware and Washington. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) (requiring only “minimal diversity” under
`which “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any Defendant”).
`C.
`The Amount In Controversy Exceeds $5 Million.
`CAFA jurisdiction requires the aggregate value of the putative class members’
`22.
`claims to exceed $5 million (exclusive of interest and costs). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
`23. Where, as here, a complaint does not plead a specific amount of damages, the
`petition for removal “need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy
`exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” consistent with the pleading standard under Rule 8(a). Dart
`Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
`“If a federal court is uncertain about whether ‘all matters in controversy’ in a purported class
`- 6 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`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.” Senate Judiciary Report, S. REP. 109-14, at 42
`(2005) (citation omitted).
`24.
`CAFA does not require a defendant “to comb through its records to identify and
`calculate the exact frequency of violations.” Danielsson v. Blood Centers of Pac., 2019 WL
`7290476, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2019) (quoting Lopez v. Aerotek, Inc., 2015 WL 2342558, at
`*3 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2015)). Nor does CAFA require a removing defendant to “research, state,
`[or attempt to] prove the plaintiff’s claim for damages.” De Vega v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 507
`F. Supp. 3d 1214, 1217 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also
`LaCross v. Knight Transp. Inc., 775 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejecting plaintiff’s
`conflation of “the amount in controversy with the amount of damages ultimately recoverable.”).
`When assessing the amount in controversy, a court must “assume that the allegations of the
`complaint are true and assume that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made
`in the complaint.” Campbell v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 471 F. App’x 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
`Kenneth Rothschild Tr. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal.
`2002)).
`25.
`
`As explained below, the amount in controversy here easily exceeds $5 million.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff’s Request for Back Pay Places More Than $5 Million In
`Controversy.
`
`There are well in excess of 20,000 members of the putative class. Bruno Decl. ¶ 3.
`26.
`The average minimum wage in California during the relevant time period was
`27.
`more than $12.00, and Amazon paid all members of the putative class at least minimum wage.
`See id. Thus, a conservative estimate of the weekly pay for the full-time employees who are
`members of the putative class is $480.00 ($12 x 40 hours).
`28.
`“[U]nder FEHA, back pay is awarded from the time of the adverse employment
`action until the date of judgment and includes past lost wages and lost benefits.” Melendez v.
`HMS Host Family Rests., Inc., 2011 WL 3760058, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2011); see also
`Simmons v. PCR Tech., 209 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (using nearly 10-month
`- 7 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`period between termination and date of removal to calculate potential lost back wages for
`purposes of determining amount in controversy); Fisher v. HNTB Corp., 2018 WL 6323077, at *4
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018) (using 34-week period between termination and removal to calculate
`value of lost wages for purposes of amount in controversy).
`29.
`Based on the conservative assumption of one week of back pay at the average
`minimum weekly pay of $480.00, the Complaint’s claim for back pay alone places over $9,600,000
`in controversy (20,000 class members x $480.00).4
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Request for Emotional Distress Damages Places Additional
`Amounts in Controversy.
`A plaintiff may recover emotional distress damages in a discrimination action
`30.
`under FEHA. See Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995)
`(“emotional distress is allowable for the statutory FEHA claim”); Hernandez v. Wells Fargo
`Bank, N.A., 2020 WL 6020593, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2020) (granting final approval of
`settlement wherein a “fixed amount of one million dollars will then be placed into the
`‘severe emotional distress fund’” to release the claims of nearly 500 class members); Wellens v.
`Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., 2015 WL 10090564, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015) (granting preliminary
`approval of settlement establishing $926,200 fund to compensate class members for “harassment,
`retaliation, or emotional distress damages”); Barefield v. Chevron U.S., Inc., 1997 WL 9888, at
`*1, *31, n.64 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 1997) (noting that “the Consent Decree [previously approved by
`the Court to settle class action claims for employment discrimination, among others] created a
`compensatory damages fund (to contain between $710,000 and $750,000)” to “settle[ ]… claims
`for emotional distress”).
`31.
`Plaintiff alleges that she and members of the putative class “have suffered injury,
`including but not limited to emotional distress, entitling them to compensatory damages[.]”
`Compl. ¶¶ 51, 57. While Plaintiff’s emotional distress allegations are vague, “[t]he vagueness of
`plaintiffs’ pleadings with regard to emotional distress damages should not preclude [the] Court
`
`4 The calculation excludes the value of any employment benefits that the Complaint seeks on
`behalf of the class, which, if included, would substantially increase the amount in controversy.
`- 8 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`from noting that these damages are potentially substantial.” Richmond v. Allstate Ins. Co., 897 F.
`Supp. 447, 450 (S.D. Cal. 1995).
`32.
`Individual emotional distress damage awards in comparable cases regularly exceed
`$10,000. See, e.g., Wondeh v. Change Healthcare Prac. Mgmt. Sols., Inc., 2020 WL 5630268, at
`*2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020) (denying motion to remand and recognizing “similar employment
`cases in which the jury awarded between $54,000 and $116,333 in emotional distress damages.”);
`Jackson v. CEVA Logistics, 2020 WL 1967208, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020) (denying motion
`to remand and recognizing prior jury awards of emotional distress damages in FEHA cases
`ranging from $100,000 to $1,300,000); Martinez v. Rite Aid Corp., 63 Cal. App. 5th 958, 968
`(2021) (affirming jury verdict awarding “$374,000 in past noneconomic loss, and $600,000 in
`future noneconomic loss” on wrongful termination claim and “$4 million in past noneconomic
`damages on [plaintiff’s] intentional infliction of emotional distress claim”); Green v. Laibco,
`LLC, 192 Cal. App. 4th 441, 446 (2011) (affirming jury verdict in wrongful termination and
`FEHA case awarding “750,000 for past noneconomic loss, including emotional distress”).
`33.
`Conservatively assuming only $250 in emotional distress damages per class
`member places another $5,000,000 in controversy (i.e., 20,000 class members x $250).
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees Places Additional Amounts in
`Controversy, Further Exceeding the CAFA Threshold.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 3, 52, 58, 64-
`34.
`65; Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 4, 8, 9.
`35.
`For purposes of CAFA jurisdiction, the amount in controversy includes attorneys’
`fees. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming
`inclusion of attorneys’ fees in amount in controversy); see also Sasso v. Noble Utah Long Beach,
`LLC, 2015 WL 898468, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015) (“The Court believes that, when
`authorized by an underlying statute, the better view is to consider post-removal attorneys’ fees
`because they are part of the total ‘amount at stake.’” (citation omitted)); Giannini v. Northwestern
`Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1535196, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) (finding reasonable
`estimate of future attorneys’ fees can be used in calculating the amount in controversy).
`- 9 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`The Ninth Circuit benchmarks recoverable attorneys’ fees at 25 percent of the
`36.
`potential damages award. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998),
`overruled on other grounds by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011); In re
`Quintus Sec. Litig., 148 F. Supp. 2d 967, 973 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (benchmark for attorneys’ fees is
`25% of the common fund). Using that 25 percent benchmark equates to $3,650,000 in fees (25%
`of $14,600,000). But for purposes of this removal, Defendants will assume an even more
`conservative estimate of $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees. Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel, Peter M.
`Hart, has filed fee motions in class actions that report his hourly rate at $675. Request for Judicial
`Notice, Ex. A. Using the rate of $675 per hour, it would take 1,482 billable hours for Plaintiff’s
`attorneys to reach at least $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees in this action. Although that is a
`substantial amount of time, litigating a large employment class action through trial would likely
`require at least this number of hours, and perhaps many multiples more. See, e.g., Ridgeway v.
`Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 269 F. Supp. 3d 975, 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (granting a total of
`$15,200,002.90 in attorneys’ fees based on a total of 10,595.8 hours at rates ranging from $300 to
`$900 per hours following a 16-day class action trial); Ibarra v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 WL
`5276295, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) (awarded $1,967,253.76 in attorneys’ fees to the
`plaintiffs following summary judgment in their favor where class counsel had spent 1,805.55
`hours litigating at rates ranging from $325 to $775); In re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, 222
`F. Supp. 3d 813, 847 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (awarding $1,156,821.12 in fees following trial based on
`4,016.74 hours billed and a blended rate of only $288 per hour).
`
`Summary of the Amount Placed in Controversy Under CAFA.
`4.
`As described above, a reasonable and conservative estimate of the amount placed
`37.
`in controversy by Plaintiff’s claims for back wages, emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees
`exceeds $5,000,000.
`
`- 10 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`Claim
`
`Amount in Controversy
`
`Back Wages
`
`Emotional Distress
`
`Attorneys’ Fees
`Total
`
`$9,600,00.00
`
`$5,000,000.00
`
`$1,000,000.00
`$15,600,000.00
`
`Consequently, the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff’s claims easily
`38.
`exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
`
`V.
`
`THIS COURT HAS ORIGINAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER
`THE RULE FOR TRADITIONAL DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
`39.
`The Complaint also satisfies traditional diversity jurisdiction because “the matter
`in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is
`between . . . citizens of different States.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)-(a)(1).
`A.
`Complete Diversity of Citizenship Exists Between the Parties.
`Plaintiff is domiciled in California, as she is a resident of California with an intent
`40.
`to remain in the State. Section IV.B., supra.
`41.
`Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. are citizens of
`Delaware and Washington. Id.
`42.
`For the purposes of determining the citizenship of a limited liability company for
`traditional diversity, Ninth Circuit looks to the citizenship of each of the LLC’s members. See
`Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)
`43.
`Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is a limited liability company organized
`under the laws of the State of Delaware. Brown Decl. ¶ 3. Its principal place of business is in
`Seattle, Washington. Id. Amazon.com, Sales Inc. is the sole member and only owner of
`Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC. Id. Amazon.com Sales, Inc. is wholly owned by
`Amazon.com, Inc. Id. Amazon.com Sales, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`State of Delaware. Its principal place of business and corporate headquarters is in Seattle,
`Washington, where its officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities. Thus,
`
`- 11 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC is a citizen of Delaware and Washington. See 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(c)(1); Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899.
`44.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), the citizenship of defendants sued under
`fictitious names does not affect the diversity analysis. Thus, the inclusion of “Doe” defendants in
`the Complaint has no effect on removability. Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 690-
`91 (9th Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (stating that for purposes of removal, the citizenship of
`Defendant sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded).
`45.
`Thus, complete diversity exists between the parties because Plaintiff is a citizen of
`California and Defendants are citizens of Washington and Delaware. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)-(a)(1).
`B.
`The $75,000 Amount in Controversy Requirement is Satisfied.
`All recoverable damages, including penalties and attorneys’ fees, count toward the
`46.
`amount in controversy. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333,
`347-48 (1977) (superseded by statute on other grounds); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927,
`945 (9th Cir. 2001); Galt G/S/ v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1998).
`47.
`Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that Amazon discriminated against her based on
`her age. Compl. ¶¶ 20-32. Plaintiff seeks to recover several categories of damages, including front
`pay, back pay, the value of lost employment benefits, and emotional distress, as well as attorneys’
`fees. Id. at Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 5, 7, 9.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff’s Request for Lost Wages Places At Least $50,000 In
`Controversy.
`
`Plaintiff alleges Amazon terminated her in October 2018, re-hired her in 2019, and
`48.
`terminated her again in 2019. Compl. ¶¶ 26 28, 32. Plaintiff was terminated most recently on
`December 6, 2019. Bruno Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff was a part-time employee and worked between 20
`and 29 hours per week during her employment with Amazon. Id.
`49.
`At the time of her 2018 termination, Plaintiff was earning at least minimum wage,
`i.e. $11.00 per hour. See Bruno Decl. ¶ 3. Thus, Plaintiff’s weekly pay was at least $220 (i.e., $11
`x 20 hours). At least 9 weeks passed between Plaintiff’s October 2018 termination and her rehire
`
`- 12 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`in 2019. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint places $1,980 in controversy for back wages stemming from
`her 2018 termination.
`50.
`At all times in 2019, Plaintiff’s rate of pay was $15 per hour. Bruno Decl. ¶ 5.
`Thus, Plaintiff’s weekly pay was at least $300 (i.e., $15 x 20 hours). Approximately 109 weeks
`passed between Plaintiff’s December 2019 termination and the date of this removal. As a result,
`Plaintiff’s Complaint places an additional $32,700 in controversy for back wages (i.e., 112 weeks
`x $300 minimum weekly hourly wages).
`51.
`Plaintiff also seeks front pay. “Because Plaintiff ‘claims at the time of removal that
`her termination caused her to lose future wages, . . . then there is no question that future wages are
`‘at stake’ in the litigation, whatever the likelihood that she will actually recover them.’” Molina v.
`Target Corp., 2018 WL 3935347, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018) (quoting Chavez v. JPMorgan
`Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 2018)). “[C]ourts have often found that one year from
`the date of removal is a ‘conservative estimate of the trial date’ in employment cases.” Reyes v.
`Staples Off. Superstore, LLC, 2019 WL 4187847, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2019) (citing Fisher v.
`HNTB Corp., 2018 WL 6323077, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2018)). Assuming this case goes to trial
`within a year from removal, Plaintiff’s claim for front pay places an additional $15,600 in
`controversy (i.e., 52 weeks x $300 minimum weekly hourly wages).
`Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for lost wages places $50,280 in controversy, exclusive of
`52.
`any amounts for lost benefits.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Request for Emotional Distress Damages Places More Than
`$75,000 In Controversy.
`In employment discrimination actions, juries in California and elsewhere have
`53.
`returned verdicts with substantial awards for non-compensatory damages that far exceed $75,000.
`See EEOC v. Harris Farms, Inc., Docket No. 02-CV-06199-AW1-LJ0 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2005)
`(jury verdict included damages for $53,000 in past earnings, $91,000 in futures earnings, and
`$350,000 in emotional distress damages); Astor v. Rent-A-Center, Docket No: 03AS048644
`(Sacramento Cty. Superior Court Aug. 5, 2005) (jury verdict included $369,000 in economic
`damages and $250,000 in noneconomic damages); Pansacola v. Malaysia Airlines, Docket No.:
`
`- 13 -
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00348-JSC Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`CV045944 (C.D. Cal. Feb 6, 2006) (jury verdict of $237,537, of which $160,000 was for punitive
`damages). Prevailing plaintiffs in employment lawsuits regularly receive more than $75,000 for
`emotional distress damages alone. See, e.g., Keifer v. Bechtel Corp., 65 Cal. App. 4th 893, 895
`(1998) (upholding jury award in excess of $75,000.00 for emotional distress damages in age
`discrimination and wrongful termination case); Ward v. Cadbury Schweppes Bottling Grp., 2011
`WL 7447633 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2011) (awarding a total of $7,550,000 in compensatory
`damages for emotional distress and physical injuries to six plaintiffs in age discrimination and
`wrongful termination case); Welch v. Ivy Hill Corp., No. BC414667, 2011 WL 3293268 (Los
`Angeles Sup. Ct. Mar. 8, 2011) (awarding $1,270,000 in pain and suffering to employee in age
`discrimination action).
`54.
`“Emotional distress awards in California for wrongful termination in violation of
`public policy