`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Rick Bergstrom (State Bar No. 169594)
`rjbergstrom@jonesday.com
`Koree B. Wooley (State Bar No. 294489)
`kbwooley@jonesday.com
`Joshua C. Dutton (State Bar No. 328750)
`jdutton@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive
`Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121.3134
`Telephone: +1.858.314.1200
`Facsimile:
`+1.844.345.3178
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`ELIOT JOHNSON, individually, and on
`behalf of the general public,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and DOES
`1 through 100, inclusive,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07774-JD
`DEFENDANT MICRON
`TECHNOLOGY, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
`REMAND DISTRICT COURT CASE
`TO STATE COURT
`[REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`FILED CONCURRENTLY]
`DATE:
`December 9, 2021
`TIME:
`10:00 a.m.
`CTRM:
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`Page
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED (L.R. 7-4(a)(3)) ....................................... 2
`RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (L.R. 7-
`4(a)(4)) ................................................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint ...................................................................... 2
`B.
`Micron Timely Removed This Action Based On Individual Diversity
`Jurisdiction and CAFA Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 3
`1.
`Individual Diversity Jurisdiction ................................................................. 4
`2.
`CAFA .......................................................................................................... 4
`Micron’s Motion to Dismiss ................................................................................... 5
`C.
`The Parties’ Meet and Confer Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand ............... 5
`D.
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`This Court Has Individual Diversity Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. §
`1332(a) .................................................................................................................... 7
`1.
`The Value of the Injunctive Relief Alone Exceeds $75,000 ....................... 7
`2.
`The Attorneys’ Fees In Controversy on Plaintiff’s Individual Claim
`Against Micron Exceed $75,000 ................................................................. 9
`Micron Properly Included Plaintiff’s Share of PAGA Penalties .............. 12
`3.
`This Court Has Jurisdiction Under CAFA ............................................................ 12
`B.
`PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES IS MERITLESS ........................ 14
`VI.
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Anderson v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-CV-03759-SVW, 2019 WL 2902702 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019),
`aff’d, 813 F. App’x 308 (9th Cir. 2020) ....................................................................................10
`
`Anderson v. Starbucks Corp.,
`No. 3:20-CV-01178-JD, 2020 WL 7779015 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2020) ....................................7
`
`Arias v. Super. Ct.,
`46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009) ..............................................................................................................13
`
`Bandoy v. Huh,
`1996 WL 675978 (Cal. Sup. 1996) ...........................................................................................11
`
`Blackwell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc.,
`No. 06CV307 DMS (AJB), 2008 WL 11337257 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2008) ...........................2, 6
`
`BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, 2019 WL 1117537 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) .................................8
`
`Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`971 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2020) ...............................................................................................12, 14
`
`Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`888 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................14
`
`Culley v. Lincare Inc.,
`236 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (E.D. Cal. 2017) .......................................................................................3
`
`Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,
`574 U.S. 81 (2014) ......................................................................................................................6
`
`Diaz v. A & R Logistics, Inc.,
`No. 15CV0520-DMS-RBB, 2015 WL 3464450 (S.D. Cal. May 29, 2015) .......................13, 15
`
`Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC,
`899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................................9
`
`Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC,
`840 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`Case No. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`Harris v. KM Indus., Inc.,
`980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Haw. ex rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A,
`761 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Hess v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
`No. 3:21-CV-00093 WHA, 2021 WL 1700162 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2021) ...........................8, 9
`
`Jan Marini Skin Rsch., Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp.,
`No. C 09-4910 JF, 2010 WL 251648 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010) ................................................7
`
`Kalaveras v. NCR Corp.,
`No. 20-CV-6930 YGR, 2021 WL 1580828 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2021) ....................................14
`
`Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,
`546 U.S. 132 (2005) ..................................................................................................................14
`
`Martin v. The Old Turner Inn,
`2003 WL 22416020 (Cal. Sup. 2003) .......................................................................................11
`
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-03826-EMC, 2015 WL 8587589 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) .............................3, 13
`
`Parker v. It’s a Laugh Prods.,
`No. 09-CV-2442-GAF-JCX, 2009 WL 10671983 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 2009) .........................13
`
`Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P.,
`854 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Pulera v. F&B Inc.,
`No. 2:08-CV-00275-MCE-DAD, 2008 WL 3863489 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2008) ................9, 10
`
`Rodriguez v. Swissport USA, Inc.,
`No. CV 15-3951-GW, 2015 WL 4977187 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) ...........................2, 13, 15
`
`Rom v. Steele,
`No. 16-CV-01658-EDL, 2016 WL 10869954 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2016) ................................15
`
`Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogix Semiconductor,
`642 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ......................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`Strojnik v. Little Am. Hotels & Resorts Inc.,
`No. CV-21-08181-PCT-DLR, 2021 WL 4710179 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2021) ............................7, 9
`
`Thomas v. CVS Health Corp.,
`No. 2:19-CV-04283-R-FFM, 2019 WL 3526344 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) ............................13
`
`Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC,
`68 Cal. App. 5th 746, 861 (2021) .......................................................................................14, 15
`
`Wondeh v. Change Healthcare Prac. Mgmt. Sols., Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-07824-JD, 2020 WL 5630268 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020).......................................6
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) ..........................................................................................................................6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ..............................................................................................................2, 14, 15
`
`California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ..............................................................................................8
`
`California Labor Code § 2699 ..........................................................................................................3
`
`California Labor Code § 2802 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`California Labor Code § 2802(c) ......................................................................................................9
`
`California Private Attorney General Act................................................................................. passim
`
`Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) ..................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Plaintiff Eliot Johnson (“Plaintiff”) brings a putative class action against Micron
`Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) alleging Micron failed to reimburse both him and putative class
`members for expenses incurred while working from home because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
`See generally Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 1-1 (attached to Micron’s
`Notice of Removal). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges his home internet expenses were allegedly
`incurred while he was working from home “[b]ecause [his] employment was during the
`COVID19 pandemic.” FAC, ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 6. Plaintiff’s claims under California Labor Code
`section 2802 (“Section 2802”) are therefore inextricably intertwined with the COVID-19
`pandemic and the government stay-at-home orders issued in response to that crisis. Accordingly,
`as explained in Micron’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for reimbursement of
`these expenses on his own behalf because: (1) home internet expenses incurred to comply with
`government mandates are not required to be reimbursed under Section 2802; and (2) Micron did
`not directly cause Plaintiff to incur the internet expenses for which he seeks reimbursement. ECF
`No. 9. Thus, to avoid dismissal of his claims, Plaintiff brings this frivolous Motion to Remand.
`Micron timely and properly removed this action to federal court because subject matter
`jurisdiction exists under both: (1) individual diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
`(“individual diversity jurisdiction”); and (2) the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)
`(“CAFA”). See ECF No. 1 (“NOR”). Ignoring the full scope of the dual bases for jurisdiction set
`forth in Micron’s NOR, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand levies just one challenge: “that Defendant
`had no reasonable basis to remove the case to federal court by including California Private
`Attorney General Act (‘PAGA’) penalties to meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of
`diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and [CAFA].” ECF No. 20 (“Motion” or
`“MTR”) at 1:10-13.
`This singular basis of Plaintiff’s Motion is fatally flawed, however, because Micron
`established in its NOR—and Plaintiff does not challenge—that there is over $75,000 in
`controversy on Plaintiff’s individual claim without even considering PAGA penalties. First, as
`set forth in Micron’s NOR and not contested by Plaintiff, the amount in controversy on
`1
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`Case No. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`injunctive relief alone exceeds $75,000. Second, it is beyond dispute that any reasonable estimate
`of attorneys’ fees to be incurred by Plaintiff litigating his individual claim for reimbursement of
`home internet expenses will far exceed $75,000. Accordingly, for these two independent reasons,
`the Motion must be denied. Blackwell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., No. 06CV307 DMS (AJB), 2008
`WL 11337257, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2008) (“[T]he named Plaintiff satisfies the requirements
`of individual diversity jurisdiction; therefore, regardless of whether the Court retains jurisdiction
`under CAFA, jurisdiction is proper under Section 1332(a).”).
`Moreover, while the Court does not need to reach this issue to deny the Motion, Micron
`properly included class PAGA penalties to establish the amount in controversy under CAFA
`because Plaintiff’s PAGA claim is brought as a class action. Plaintiff’s primary case law on this
`point, Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC, recognizes that when a plaintiff asserts a “PAGA claim . . . as
`a representative claim,” PAGA penalties are not added to the amount in controversy for CAFA
`jurisdiction. 795 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2015). District courts after Yocupicio have
`recognized, however, that this case also stands for the converse point: where a PAGA claim is
`brought on a class basis (as is the case here), PAGA penalties are appropriately included in
`establishing the amount in controversy. Rodriguez v. Swissport USA, Inc., No. CV 15-3951-GW
`(PLAx), 2015 WL 4977187, at *4 n.4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) (citing Yocupicio). Accordingly,
`because the PAGA penalties for the class exceed $5,000,000, jurisdiction is also proper under
`CAFA. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand should therefore be denied.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED (L.R. 7-4(a)(3))
`1.
`Whether this Action should be remanded to state court because the Court lacks
`subject matter jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and CAFA.
`2.
`If this action is remanded, whether Micron lacked even a colorable argument for
`removal, such that an award of attorneys’ fees would be “just.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
`
`III. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (L.R. 7-4(a)(4))
`A.
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
`Plaintiff filed the operative FAC on August 9, 2020. ECF No. 1-1 at p. 21. The FAC
`asserts claims under Section 2802, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”),
`2
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`and California Labor Code § 2699 (“PAGA”) for failure to reimburse Plaintiff and putative class
`members for home internet expenses incurred while he and the putative class members were
`required to work from home because of the COVID 19 pandemic. Id. at p. 23, ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiff
`seeks injunctive relief, unreimbursed business expenses, civil penalties, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
`Id. at pp. 29-31, ¶¶ 30, 37, 38 42, Prayer for Relief (“Prayer”).
`As made plain from the face of his complaint, each claim is brought on a class basis.
`Indeed, Plaintiff titles his entire FAC as a “CLASS ACTION:”
`
`FAC, ECF No. 1-1 at p. 21. He also identified this case as a “class action” on the civil cover
`sheet filed with his Complaint. See Civil Cover Sheet, ECF No. 1-1 at p. 2. The contents of
`Plaintiff’s FAC confirms his intention to assert all causes of action as class claims. Notably, the
`FAC states: “Plaintiff, on his own behalf and in his capacity as a proxy or agent of the
`California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), demands a jury trial,”
`FAC, ECF No. 1-1 at p. 23, ¶ 5, which confirms that Plaintiff seeks to bring his PAGA claim on a
`class basis.1
`
`B. Micron Timely Removed This Action Based On Individual Diversity
`Jurisdiction and CAFA Jurisdiction
`On September 7, 2021, Micron’s counsel signed and returned a Notice of
`Acknowledgement of Receipt, effectuating service of Plaintiff’s FAC. NOR, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4.
`
`1 “[The] LWDA is assigned responsibility under California law for bringing actions to
`enforce the state’s labor laws.” Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P., 854 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th
`Cir. 2017). A plaintiff in a PAGA action steps into the shoes of the LWDA to bring the claim.
`Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2017). Trial by jury is not available
`on a PAGA claim brought on a representative basis. O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-CV-
`03826-EMC, 2015 WL 8587589, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015).
`3
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`On October 5, 2021, Micron timely removed this action. Id. Plaintiff does not challenge the
`timeliness of Micron’s removal. As established in its NOR, and as confirmed herein, this Court
`has jurisdiction over this matter on two independent grounds: diversity jurisdiction and CAFA.
`1.
`Individual Diversity Jurisdiction
`The NOR sets forth the basis for individual diversity jurisdiction. It is undisputed that
`complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties because Micron is a citizen of
`Delaware and Idaho and Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. The FAC is silent as
`to the specific damages sums in controversy. See FAC, ECF No. 1-1. In light of this silence,
`Micron’s NOR thus sets forth reasonable calculations establishing that the amount in controversy
`exceeds $75,000 based on the relief requested in the FAC: (1) injunctive relief; (2) compensatory
`damages; (3) plaintiff’s PAGA penalties; and (4) attorneys’ fees. It would cost Micron $104,500
`to comply with the monetary injunctive relief Plaintiff requests, namely, that Micron must
`“account for, disgorge, and restore to Plaintiff and Class Members, the reimbursement of
`expenses unlawfully withheld from Plaintiff and Class Members.” NOR, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 14.
`This calculation is based on the valuation of the injunctive relief sought, which is $5 per month,
`per class member (approximately 1100 class members at issue), for the 19 months of employment
`at issue (the start of the pandemic to the time of removal). Id. Further, Micron explained, and
`Plaintiff did not contest, that it would take an additional $25,000 to hire a payroll clerk to improve
`payroll policies and increase review of expense reimbursement, as Plaintiff requested. Id.; see
`also FAC, ECF No. 1-1 at p. 31 at Prayer (requesting injunctive relief “to ensure compliance with
`[California law]”). In addition, Plaintiff’s compensatory damages are worth $60, he is entitled to
`a pro-rata share of statutory penalties of $1,275, and he has put in controversy well over $75,000
`in attorneys’ fees to litigate his individual reimbursement claim (likely to exceed $225,000, which
`is three times the amount in controversy). See NOR, ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 16-17; Declaration of Rick
`Bergstrom (“Bergstrom Decl.”) ¶ 7.
`
`2.
`CAFA
`Micron also removed this Action under CAFA because minimal diversity of citizenship
`exists between Micron and Plaintiff, the class is greater than 100 members, and the amount in
`4
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`controversy exceeds $5,000,000. NOR, ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 20-30. With respect to the amount in
`controversy, Micron established that Plaintiff and the class could recover, among other things,
`$8,250,000 in PAGA penalties from March 2020-October 2021. Id. at ¶¶ 26-29.
`
`C. Micron’s Motion to Dismiss
`On October 6, 2021, Micron filed a Motion to Dismiss the entire FAC on the grounds that
`Plaintiff has not stated a claim under Section 2802 because any home internet expenses allegedly
`incurred by Plaintiff resulted from government stay-at-home orders imposed due to the COVID-
`19 pandemic—not based on requirements imposed by Micron. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff now brings
`this frivolous Motion to Remand to avoid an order dismissing his case altogether.
`
`D.
`The Parties’ Meet and Confer Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
`On Sunday, October 31, at 8:02 p.m., counsel for Plaintiff informed Micron’s counsel that
`he would file a motion to remand. Bergstrom Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A. As support for his position,
`counsel for Plaintiff stated: “As mentioned to you during my two calls with you last week, I was
`looking into whether Plaintiff will file a motion to remand. Plaintiff has decided to do so. I’ve
`attached a 9th Circuit case stating that the PAGA penalties cannot be included in the 5 million
`amount of controversy to assert jurisdiction under CAFA in an action that both class claims and a
`PAGA claim.” Id. About five hours later, on Monday, November 1, at 1:18 a.m., counsel for
`Plaintiff again contacted counsel for Micron with district court authority on the same issue he had
`raised just hours before. Counsel for Plaintiff concluded his message by threatening that “Once I
`file the motion, I won’t stipulate or withdraw my motion unless there is an agreement on fees for
`Plaintiff’s time on the motion. I would like to avoid wasting the court’s time.” Id. ¶ 4, Ex. B.
`Counsel for Micron responded to Plaintiff’s messages on Monday, November 1, at 5:22
`p.m. Id. ¶5, Ex. C. While Plaintiff ignores this fact in his summary of the parties’ meet and
`confer efforts, MTR, ECF No. 20-1 at pp. 2-3, counsel for Micron pointed out that Plaintiff “ha[d]
`not challenged the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)” and pointed out that “the
`Court needs only one basis for jurisdiction.” Bergstrom Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C. Counsel for Micron
`also addressed Plaintiff’s lone challenge to CAFA jurisdiction, noting that Plaintiff’s authority
`“recognizes that PAGA penalties may be included in the amount in controversy for purposes of
`5
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`establishing jurisdiction under CAFA where, as here, the PAGA claim is styled as a class action.”
`Id.
`
`Rather than responding to this message or explaining the grounds upon which Plaintiff
`would challenge this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), Plaintiff filed the
`instant Motion. While Plaintiff asserts that he did not want to waste the Court’s time in bringing
`this Motion, his papers suggest otherwise, given that he does not contest Micron’s valuation of
`the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks, which alone exceeds $75,000.
`In sum, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand challenges only one aspect of Micron’s removal of
`this action: including PAGA penalties to establish the amount in controversy. But Micron does
`not even need to include PAGA penalties at all to reach the amount in controversy necessary to
`establish individual diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Moreover, Micron properly
`included PAGA penalties in the calculation of the amount in controversy under CAFA because
`the PAGA claim is styled as a class action.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Any civil case may be removed to a district court as long as the district court has original
`jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A court need only have jurisdiction on one
`basis. Blackwell, 2008 WL 11337257, at *2. Two distinct bases for original jurisdiction are
`individual diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and CAFA jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(d). Individual diversity jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff sues a citizen of a
`different state over an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Under
`CAFA, original jurisdiction exists if the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
`$5,000,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). “[No] antiremoval presumption” applies to cases removed
`under CAFA. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014).
`When the plaintiff’s complaint does not state the amount in controversy, the defendant’s
`notice of removal may do so in a “short and plain” statement that “need not contain evidentiary
`submissions.” Wondeh v. Change Healthcare Prac. Mgmt. Sols., Inc., No. 19-CV-07824-JD,
`2020 WL 5630268, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020) (quoting Dart, 574 U.S. at 81). In response
`to a facial attack on the basis for jurisdiction, rather than a factual attack, the defendant need not
`6
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`respond to the remand motion with “competent proof” under a summary judgement-type
`standard. Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 700 (9th Cir. 2020); Anderson v. Starbucks
`Corp., No. 3:20-CV-01178-JD, 2020 WL 7779015, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2020).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`This Court Has Individual Diversity Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
`Under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil
`actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the matter is between citizens of
`different states. As set forth in the NOR, Micron is a citizen of Delaware and Idaho and Plaintiff
`is a citizen of California, so complete diversity between the parties is established. NOR, ECF No.
`1 at ¶¶ 10-11. Plaintiff does not assert otherwise. Micron also established that the jurisdictional
`threshold is met exclusively by the value of injunctive relief (which Plaintiff does not contest) and
`also based on the attorneys’ fees at issue on Plaintiff’s individual claim.
`
`1.
`The Value of the Injunctive Relief Alone Exceeds $75,000
`Where, as here, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the amount in controversy may
`include “the cost of complying with an injunction.” Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC,
`840 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Strojnik v. Little Am. Hotels & Resorts Inc., No. CV-
`21-08181-PCT-DLR, 2021 WL 4710179, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2021) (denying motion to
`remand because “the Court is satisfied that the cost of complying with Plaintiff's requested
`injunction, along with any potential punitive damages award, pushes the amount at stake in this
`case over the $75,000 threshold”).
`Micron properly included and reasonably valued the injunctive relief at issue in
`calculating the amount in controversy in its NOR. In his Motion, Plaintiff disputes neither the
`inclusion of injunctive relief in the amount in controversy nor Micron’s reasonable valuation of
`his demand. He cannot do so for the first time in his reply. See Jan Marini Skin Rsch., Inc. v.
`Fed. Exp. Corp., No. C 09-4910 JF, 2010 WL 251648, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010) (declining
`“to consider argument raised for the first time in the reply brief” in support of plaintiff’s motion
`to remand). Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, Micron briefly explains why its
`inclusion and valuation of Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was proper and reasonable.
`7
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`As set forth above, the FAC seeks injunctive relief to ensure compliance with California
`law and for “account[ing], disgorge[ment], and restor[ation] of unreimbursed sums.” FAC, ECF
`No. 1-1 at p. 30, ¶ 38. Micron calculated the costs of complying with the injunction Plaintiff
`seeks at over $125,000 ($104,000 to restore unreimbursed sums and $25,000 for a payroll clerk to
`ensure compliance with California law). NOR, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 14. Plaintiff offers no contrary
`evidence. Because Plaintiff did not challenge any of Micron’s calculations, Micron need not
`submit any evidence to support those calculations in this opposition. Harris, 980 F.3d at 700.
`Courts in this district have affirmed their jurisdiction over matters like this one based on
`the value of the injunctive relief. Hess v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00093 WHA,
`2021 WL 1700162, at *2, 5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2021) (dismissing Section 2802 claim for
`reimbursement of expenses incurred in compliance with government orders issued during the
`COVID19 pandemic). In Hess, the Plaintiff sought injunctive relief pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof.
`Code § 17200 for failure to provide personal protective equipment, including masks and hand
`sanitizer. Hess v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00093 WHA (N.D. Cal.) (Complaint,
`ECF No. 1-2 at ¶¶ 94, 98-99, Exhibit B to Micron’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”)). The
`employer removed the case, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 based
`entirely on the cost to the defendant to comply with the injunctive relief requested by plaintiff.
`Id. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 11-12, RJN Ex. A). Judge Alsup subsequently
`concluded “[j]urisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and (d).” Hess, 2021 WL 1700162,
`at *2. The same is true here.
`In his Motion, Plaintiff vaguely asserts that Micron should not have included “damages on
`a classwide basis” to establish the amount in controversy. MTR, ECF No. 20-1 at 4:27-5:2. But
`the costs of compliance with the injunction (over $125,000) does not constitute “class damages.”
`See BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 5:15-CV-01370-EJD, 2019 WL 1117537, at
`*2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) (distinguishing between legal remedies, including an award of
`damages and “the equitable remedy of an injunction.”). Further, courts recognize that the amount
`in controversy in individual diversity jurisdiction may be established with the value of injunctive
`relief predicated on class-wide violations of the Labor Code. See Hess, 2021 WL 1700162, at *2.
`8
`
`MICRON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-07774-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 3:21-cv-07774-JD Document 23 Filed 11/17/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`In short, Micron established that the cost to Micron to comply with Plaintiff’s individual
`request for injunctive relief alone is enough to satisfy the amount in controversy and give this
`Court subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Hess, 2021 WL 1700162, at *2;