Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.1 Page 1 of 17
`
`MICHELE L. MARYOTT, SBN 191993
`mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
`MEGAN COONEY, SBN 295174
`mcooney@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`Telephone: 949.451.3800
`Facsimile: 949.451.4220
`
`BRADLEY J. HAMBURGER, SBN 266916
`bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, f.k.a.
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
` CASE NO. __________
`BRIANA GALLARDO, Individually
`and on behalf of all employees similarly
`DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM
`situated,
`SERVICES LLC’S NOTICE OF
`REMOVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`(San Diego County Superior Court Case
`No. 37-2022-00001593-CU-OE-CTL)
`Action Filed:
`January 13, 2022
`Trial Date:
`None Set
`
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, A
`Delaware Limited Liability Company
`f.k.a. AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
`INC.; and DOES 1 through 25,
`inclusive,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`'22
`
`CV297
`
`AHG
`
`LAB
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.2 Page 2 of 17
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL ......................................................................................................... 1
`II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL ....................................... 2
`A.
`The Proposed Class Consists of More than 100 Members ........................................... 3
`B.
`Amazon and Plaintiff Are Not Citizens of the Same State ........................................... 4
`C.
`The Amount In Controversy Exceeds $5 Million ......................................................... 5
`1.
`Plaintiff’s Request for Unpaid Overtime Alone, Calculated Based on a
`Mere Twenty Hours for Each Area Manager During the Relevant
`Period, Places More Than $5 Million in Controversy ...................................... 7
`Alternatively, Plaintiff’s Request for Penalties Under California Labor
`Code Section 226(e) on Behalf of Only Area Managers Terminated
`During the Relevant Period Places More Than $5 Million in
`Controversy ....................................................................................................... 9
`Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees Places Additional Amounts in
`Controversy, Further Exceeding the CAFA Threshold................................... 10
`III. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND REMOVAL IS PROPER ....................................... 11
`
`
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.3 Page 3 of 17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Anderson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`917 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C)) ....................................................1
`
`Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott,
`936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Ayala v. Cox Auto., Inc.,
`2016 WL 6561284 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) ....................................................................................4
`
`Barcia v. Contain-A-Way, Inc.,
`2009 WL 587844, at *5 (S.D. Cal., Mar. 6, 2009) ..........................................................................10
`
`Campbell v. Vitran Exp., Inc.,
`471 F. App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Dart Cherokee Basin Op. Co. v. Owens,
`574 U.S. 81 (2014) ....................................................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia,
`142 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1998) .........................................................................................................10
`
`Giannini v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
`2012 WL 1535196 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) ................................................................................10
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .........................................................................................................10
`
`Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
`559 U.S. 77 (2010) ............................................................................................................................5
`
`Hopson v. Hanesbrands Inc.,
`2008 WL 3385452 (N.D. Cal. 2008)...............................................................................................11
`
`Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,
`437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................................................4
`
`Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,
`704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) ...........................................................................................................4
`
`Kenneth Rothschild Tr. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
`199 F. Supp. 2d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ..............................................................................................6
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.4 Page 4 of 17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.,
`536 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................................6
`
`LaCross v. Knight Transp. Inc.,
`775 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................................5
`
`Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns., Inc.,
`627 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 2010) .........................................................................................................3, 6
`
`Mejia v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.,
`2015 WL 2452755 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) ............................................................................9, 10
`
`Mendoza v. Savage Servs. Corp.,
`2019 WL 1260629 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019) ..................................................................................8
`
`Park v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`2020 WL 3567275 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2020) .....................................................................................7
`
`Rippee v. Boston Mkt. Corp.,
`408 F. Supp. 2d 982 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ...............................................................................................6
`
`Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc.,
`974 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Soto v. Tech Packaging, Inc.,
`2019 WL 6492245 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2019) ..................................................................................10
`
`State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer,
`19 F.3d 514 (10th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................................4
`
`Std. Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,
`568 U.S. 588 (2013) ..........................................................................................................................6
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 84 .......................................................................................................................................11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332 .........................................................................................................1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1441 ...........................................................................................................................2, 3, 11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1446 .....................................................................................................................1, 2, 11, 12
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1453 ..............................................................................................................................2, 11,
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1711 .....................................................................................................................................1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.5 Page 5 of 17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 .....................................................................................................................4
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 382...............................................................................................2
`
`California Labor Code § 226 ..................................................................................................................9
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.6 Page 6 of 17
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HER
`COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
`2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711, Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC hereby
`removes to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California the
`above-captioned state court action, originally filed as Case No. 37-2002-00001593-CU-
`OE-CTL in San Diego County Superior Court, State of California. Removal is proper
`on the following grounds:
`I.
`TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
`1.
`Plaintiff Briana Gallardo (“Plaintiff”) filed a putative Class Action
`Complaint against Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”) in San Diego County
`Superior Court, State of California, Case No. 37-2002-00001593-CU-OE-CTL on
`January 13, 2022. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of the (a)
`Summons, (b) Class Action Complaint, (c) Civil Case Cover Sheet, (d) Notice of Case
`Assignment and Case Management Conference (Civil), (e) Alternative Dispute
`Resolution (ADR) Information, (f) Stipulation to Use Alternative Dispute Resolution
`(ADR), (g) Notice of Service of Process Transmittal on Amazon.com Services LLC, and
`(h) Proof of Service Summons are attached as Exhibits A–H to the Declaration of
`Michele L. Maryott (“Maryott Decl.”) filed concurrently with this notice.
`2.
`Plaintiff served Amazon.com Services LLC by process server on
`February 2, 2022. See Maryott Decl. ¶¶ 8–9, Exs. G–H. Consequently, service was
`completed on February 2, 2022. This notice of removal is timely because it is filed
`within 30 days after service was completed. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Anderson v. State
`Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 917 F.3d 1126, 1128 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Thirty days from
`February 13, 2015, was Sunday March 15, 2015, so the notice of removal would have
`been timely filed on Monday, March 16, 2015.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C))).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.7 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
`3.
`Removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1453 because this Court
`has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and all claims asserted against Amazon
`pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
`4.
`CAFA applies “to any class action before or after the entry of a class
`certification order by the court with respect to that action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(8). This
`case is a putative “class action” under CAFA because it was brought under a state statute
`or rule, namely California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, authorizing an action to be
`brought by one or more representative persons as a class action. See 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(d)(1)(B); see also Maryott Decl. Ex. B, Compl. ¶ 34.
`5.
`Plaintiff asks that “this action be certified as a class action.” Maryott Decl.
`Ex. B, Compl., Prayer for Relief. She seeks to represent “[a]ll ‘Area Managers’ or
`similarly titled employees of [Amazon] located in California” and “[a]ll employees of
`[Amazon] located in California.” Id. ¶ 21.
`6.
`In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action against Amazon:
`(1) failure to pay overtime wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 510, 204); (2) failure to pay
`minimum wage (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 510, 204); (3) failure to provide accurate wage
`statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226); (4) failure to maintain accurate records (Cal. Lab.
`Code §§ 226, 1174, 1174.5); (5) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 203); and (6)
`unlawful business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200).
`7.
` Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that putative class members are
`entitled to special and/or economic damages, restitution, wages in the form of unpaid
`overtime, interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Maryott Decl. Ex. B, Compl.,
`Prayer for Relief.
`8.
`Removal of a class action is proper if: (1) there are at least 100 members
`in the putative class; (2) there is minimal diversity between the parties, such that at least
`one class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) the
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.8 Page 8 of 17
`
`aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.
`See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441.
`9.
`Amazon denies any liability in this case, both as to Plaintiff’s individual
`claims and as to the claims she seeks to pursue on behalf of a class.1 Amazon also
`intends to oppose class certification and believes that class treatment is inappropriate
`under these circumstances in part because there are many material differences between
`the named Plaintiff and the putative class members Plaintiff seek to represent. Amazon
`expressly reserves all rights, including to oppose class certification and to contest the
`merits and propriety of all claims asserted in the Complaint. However, for purposes of
`the jurisdictional requirements for removal only, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint
`identify a putative class of more than 100 members and put in controversy, in the
`aggregate, an amount that exceeds $5 million. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
`A. The Proposed Class Consists of More than 100 Members
`10. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, this action satisfies CAFA’s requirement
`that the putative class contains at least 100 members. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B).
`11. Plaintiff’s proposed classes consist of “[a]ll ‘Area Managers’ or similarly
`titled employees of [Amazon] located in California” and “[a]ll employees of [Amazon]
`located in California.” Maryott Decl., Ex. B, Compl. ¶ 21. The statute of limitations on
`Plaintiff’s causes of action are three years, and Amazon assumes that Plaintiff’s
`inclusion of a UCL claim was intended to extend the time period by an additional year,
`in which case the class period in this case would be January 13, 2018 to present. Id., Ex.
`
` 1 Amazon denies that liability or damages can be established either as to Plaintiffs or
`on a class-wide basis. Amazon does not concede, and reserves the right to contest,
`at the appropriate time, Plaintiffs’ allegations that this action may properly proceed
`as a class action. Amazon does not concede and reserves the right to contest, at the
`appropriate time, that any of Plaintiffs’ allegations constitute a cause of action against
`it under applicable California law. No statement or reference contained herein shall
`constitute an admission of liability or a suggestion that Plaintiffs will or could
`actually recover any damages based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint
`or otherwise. Amazon’s notice seeks only to establish that the amount in controversy
`is more likely than not in excess of CAFA’s jurisdictional minimum. “The amount
`in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective
`assessment of [Defendant’s] liability.” Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns., Inc., 627 F.3d
`395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.9 Page 9 of 17
`
`B, Compl. ¶¶ 58–66; Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (statute of limitations for an action
`brought under the UCL is four years). According to Amazon’s records, there were at
`least 5,634 people employed by Amazon as Area Managers in its California facilities at
`some point during the period of January 13, 2018 to January 13, 2022. Declaration of
`Denicia “JP” Prather (“Prather Decl.”) ¶ 3(b).
`12. Accordingly, although Amazon denies Plaintiff’s factual allegations and
`denies that class treatment is permissible or appropriate, based on the allegations in the
`Complaint and the prayer for relief, the narrower of Plaintiff’s proposed classes consists
`of more than 100 members.
`B. Amazon and Plaintiff Are Not Citizens of the Same State
`13. Under CAFA’s minimum diversity of citizenship requirement, the plaintiff
`or any member of the putative class must be a citizen of a different state from any
`defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A).
`14. 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). A party’s residence is
`prima facie evidence of his or her domicile. Ayala v. Cox Auto., Inc., 2016 WL 6561284,
`at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d
`514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994)). Plaintiff alleges that she “resides in Highland, California.”
`Maryott Decl., Ex. B, Compl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff is therefore considered a citizen of California
`for purposes of removal. See Ayala, 2016 WL 6561284, at *4.
`15. A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state of its
`principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every
`state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props.
`Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Effective December 30, 2019,
`Amazon.com Services, Inc. changed its legal entity name to Amazon.com Services LLC.
`Declaration of Zane Brown (“Brown Decl.”) ¶ 2. Accordingly, Amazon.com Services,
`Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC refer to the same entity. Amazon.com Services
`LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware and has its
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.10 Page 10 of 17
`
`principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. Id. Amazon.com Services LLC’s
`only member is Amazon.com Sales, Inc., which is wholly owned by Amazon.com, Inc.
`Id. ¶ 3. Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. are incorporated in Delaware
`and each have their principal places of business in Seattle, Washington. Id.
`16. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “principal place of business”
`in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) and & (d)(2)(A) to mean “the place where a corporation’s
`officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities,” i.e., its “nerve
`center,” which “should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its
`headquarters, provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control,
`and coordination.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010). Amazon.com
`Services LLC’s headquarters, which are located in Seattle, Washington, constitutes its
`“nerve center” under the test adopted in Hertz because high-level officers oversee
`Amazon’s activities from that location. Brown Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.
`17. As such, Amazon is a citizen of Delaware and Washington for purposes of
`removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
`18. Accordingly, based on the Complaint, Plaintiff and Amazon are citizens of
`different states and CAFA’s minimal diversity requirement is met. 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(d)(2)(A).
`C. The Amount In Controversy Exceeds $5 Million
`19. CAFA requires that the amount in controversy in a class action exceed $5
`million, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). In calculating the
`amount in controversy, a court must aggregate the claims of all individual class
`members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
`20.
`“[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation
`that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee
`Basin Op. Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). To satisfy this burden, a defendant
`may rely on a “chain of reasoning” that is based on “reasonable assumptions.” LaCross
`v. Knight Transp. Inc., 775 F.3d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015). “An assumption may be
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.11 Page 11 of 17
`
`reasonable if it is founded on the allegations of the complaint.” Arias v. Residence Inn
`by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc.,
`974 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[I]n Arias we held that a removing defendant’s
`notice of removal need not contain evidentiary submissions but only plausible
`allegations of jurisdictional elements,” quotations and citations omitted). That is
`because “[t]he amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in
`disputes, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.” Lewis v. Verizon
`Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). “[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-
`court adjudication, the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted
`when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee, 574
`U.S. at 87. Importantly, Plaintiff seeking to represent a putative class cannot “bind the
`absent class” through statements aimed to limit their recovery in an effort to “avoid
`removal to federal court.” Std. Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 595–96 (2013).
`21. Moreover, in assessing whether the amount in controversy requirement has
`been satisfied, “a court must ‘assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and
`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, 648 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kenneth
`Rothschild Tr. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal.
`2002)). In other words, the focus of the Court’s inquiry must be on “what amount is put
`‘in controversy’ by the plaintiff’s complaint, not what a defendant will actually owe.”
`Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1205 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citing
`Rippee v. Boston Mkt. Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 982, 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005)).
`22. Although Amazon denies that Plaintiff’s claims have any merit, for the
`purposes of meeting the jurisdictional requirements for removal only, if Plaintiff were
`to prevail on every claim and allegation in her Complaint on behalf of the putative class,
`the requested monetary recovery would exceed $5 million.
`23. Amazon reserves the right to present evidence establishing the amount
`placed in controversy by each of Plaintiff’s claims should Plaintiff challenge whether
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.12 Page 12 of 17
`
`the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy threshold is satisfied. See Dart Cherokee, 574
`U.S. at 87–89; see also Salter, 974 F.3d at 964 (holding that only a “factual attack” that
`“contests the truth of the plaintiff’s factual allegations, usually by introducing evidence
`outside the pleadings” requires the removing defendant to “support her jurisdictional
`allegations with competent proof,” quotations and citations omitted). “[W]hen a notice
`of removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a district court may
`not remand the case back to state court without giving the defendant an opportunity to
`show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional requirements are met.”
`Arias, 936 F.3d at 924; Park v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 2020 WL 3567275, at
`*2 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2020).
`1.
`Plaintiff’s Request for Unpaid Overtime Alone, Calculated Based on
`a Mere Twenty Hours for Each Area Manager During the Relevant
`Period, Places More Than $5 Million in Controversy
`24. Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges that she is owed an unspecified
`amount of unpaid overtime wages because “neither she nor any similarly situated ‘Area
`Managers’ met the criteria for Executive Exemption, Administrative Exemption, and/or
`Professional Exemption” and was therefore allegedly misclassified. See Maryott Decl.,
`Ex. B ¶ 7. Plaintiff also alleges that Amazon “failed to pay Plaintiff and all other
`similarly situated employees wages for all overtime hours worked, permitted, directed
`and/or suffered in excess of eight (8) hours in any work day or in excess of 40 hours in
`any workweek.” Id. ¶ 24.
`25. Among other things, Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime for herself and other
`Area Managers in California during the four year period prior to filing this Complaint—
`January 13, 2018 to January 13, 2022. See id., Ex. B, Prayer for Relief. Plaintiff also
`seeks economic and non-economic damages for all current and former Amazon
`employees within the putative class. Id.
`26. Plaintiff was a full-time, exempt Area Manager. Prather Decl. ¶ 3(a).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.13 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`27. Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis as an exempt employee, but converting
`her salary to an hourly rate gives an effective hourly rate of $28.00. Id.; Compl. ¶ 6. If
`Plaintiff were entitled to overtime, her minimum overtime rate would have been
`$42.00/hr ($28.00 x 1.5).
`28. The average effective hourly rate for Area Managers in California between
`January 13, 2018 and January 13, 2022 was $34.95. Prather Decl. ¶ 3(c). If these
`individuals were entitled to overtime, the average minimum overtime rate would have
`been $52.43/hr ($34.95 x 1.5).
`29. The average duration of employment for only those Area Managers whose
`employment ended during the relevant period was 80 weeks. Id. ¶ 3(d).
`30. Courts have found that an estimate of one hour of unpaid overtime every
`week for each putative class member is reasonable for purposes of calculating the
`amount in controversy in connection with a removal. E.g., Mendoza v. Savage Servs.
`Corp., 2019 WL 1260629, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019) (“When a 100% violation
`rate is not supported by a factual or evidentiary basis, courts in this district have found
`that a conservative 20% violation rate, or one hour of overtime pay per week, to be
`reasonable.”). Plaintiff does not allege how frequently she worked overtime for which
`she was not compensated, and so Amazon has made a conservative estimate that each
`putative class member worked a total of twenty hours of overtime during the relevant
`period. Based on the average tenure of only those putative class members who are not
`still currently employed by Amazon, the assumed total of 20 hours of overtime per class
`member represents only one hour of overtime per month per putative class member,
`which is far lower than the “reasonable” estimate of one hour per week.
`31. Assuming that each Area Manager employed by Amazon between January
`13, 2018 to January 13, 2022 worked 20 total hours of overtime for which Plaintiff
`alleges they were not paid, at the minimum overtime rate based on the average effective
`hourly rate for Area Managers during this period, the amount in controversy would be
`$5,907,812.40 ($52.43 x 20 hours x 5,634 employees).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`8
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.14 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`2.
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiff’s Request for Penalties Under California
`Labor Code Section 226(e) on Behalf of Only Area Managers
`Terminated During the Relevant Period Places More Than $5 Million
`in Controversy
`32. Plaintiff also seeks to represent “[a]ll employees of [Amazon] located in
`California who were not given accurate wage statements” under California Labor Code
`Section 226(a), and seeks penalties for this alleged failure. Maryott Decl., Ex. B ¶ 21(c);
`Prayer for Relief. Area Managers account for a subset of the putative class.
`33. California Labor Code Section 226(e)(1) provides that “an employee
`suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply
`with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars
`($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars
`($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an
`aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs
`and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(1).
`34. Amazon denies that any such penalties are owed to Plaintiff or putative
`class members. However, for purposes of this jurisdictional analysis only, Amazon
`relies on Plaintiff’s allegations that the penalties are owed. Plaintiff alleges that Amazon
`failed to provide accurate wage statements, in part, because of its alleged underlying
`misclassification of Plaintiff and other Area Managers resulting in a failure to provide
`overtime wages, minimum wage, and list “the actual number of hours Plaintiff and all
`other similarly situated employees were employed in a given day or workweek.”
`Maryott Decl., Ex. B, Compl. ¶¶ 7–15. Based on those allegations, it is reasonable to
`assume, for the purposes of this jurisdictional analysis only, that all Area Managers in
`the putative class received inaccurate wage statements each pay period. See, e.g., Mejia
`v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2015 WL 2452755, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2015)
`(concluding it is appropriate to use 100% violation rate for wage statement claim where
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`9
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00297-LAB-AHG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 PageID.15 Page 15 of 17
`
`the claim is derivative); Soto v. Tech Packaging, Inc., 2019 WL 6492245, at *7 (C.D.
`Cal. Dec. 3, 2019) (same).
`35. The average length of employment of only 1,344 Area Managers in
`California who were terminated between January 13, 2018 and January 13, 2022 was 80
`weeks. Prather Decl. ¶ 3(e). Wage statements were issued biweekly (id. ¶ 4), and so the
`average number of wage statements issued to only Area Managers terminated during
`this period was 40 (80 weeks / 2).
`36. Assuming a one hundred percent violation rate for only Area Managers
`terminated during the relevant period, which is a subset of the putative class Plaintiff
`seeks to represent, each Area Manager would be entitled to $3,950 in damages ([1 x $50]
`+ [39 x $100]) = $3,950), exclusive of attorneys fees, under the statute, which places in
`controversy $5,308,800 (1,344 employees x $3,950). See Mejia, 2015 WL 2452755, at
`*5 (approving 100% violation rate for derivative wage statement claim).
`3.
`Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees Places Additional Amounts in
`Controversy, Further Exceeding the CAFA Threshold
`37. Plaintiff also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees and non-economic damages.
`Maryott Decl., Ex. B, Compl., Prayer for Relief.
`38. Claims for attorn