Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
John Thornhill worked for McLane Foodservice, Inc. in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately November 2021 to July 2023. He filed a putative class action in California state court asserting eight wage-and-hour claims under the California Labor Code (failure to pay minimum/straight-time and overtime wages; meal and rest period violations; waiting-time penalties; wage-statement violations; expense reimbursement) and a UCL claim. The class consisted of all California hourly or non-exempt employees of McLane during the four-year period before the complaint.
McLane removed under the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting more than $5 million in controversy. Thornhill moved to remand, arguing McLane had not met its burden. The complaint pleaded violations only as occurring “at times” to “some of, but not necessarily all of, the Class,” without specific facts about job duties, work patterns, or the circumstances of alleged Labor Code violations.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to remand.
Under Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the removing party need only plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold; if challenged, the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the threshold is met. McLane provided declarations supporting its calculations of: total California non-exempt employee population during the class period, hours worked, average hourly rates, and reasonable assumed violation rates for each Labor Code claim.
Even applying conservative assumptions about violation rates and excluding speculative damages categories, McLane’s aggregated calculations across the eight causes of action and CAFA-permitted attorney’s fees easily exceeded the $5 million CAFA threshold. The court noted that the complaint’s vague “at times” allegations did not cap the alleged violation rates; in CAFA practice, courts use the complaint’s broadest plausible reading combined with conservative defense-side assumptions to estimate the amount at stake.
Plaintiff’s argument that McLane’s assumed violation rates were inflated did not carry the day where the rates fell within the range routinely accepted in similar Northern District wage-and-hour CAFA cases. With more than $5 million plausibly in controversy, CAFA’s amount-in-controversy requirement was met, complete diversity was uncontested, and the case remained in federal court.
Key Takeaways
- Vague California wage-and-hour class action complaints alleging that the employer “at times” violated the Labor Code as to “some of, but not necessarily all of, the Class” do not cap the amount-in-controversy analysis. Defendants can use conservative assumptions to demonstrate the CAFA $5 million threshold.
- Under Dart Cherokee, the removing defendant only needs plausible allegations in the notice of removal; the burden of proof shifts to a preponderance only if the plaintiff challenges the calculation.
- Defendants in California CAFA wage-and-hour cases should support their amount-in-controversy showing with declarations breaking down class size, hours worked, and applicable hourly rates, then apply reasonable violation rates from comparable cases.
- Attorneys’ fees recoverable under California Labor Code provisions and the UCL count toward the CAFA amount-in-controversy calculation.
- For plaintiffs’ counsel seeking to defeat CAFA jurisdiction, the practical lesson is to plead specific lower-bound damages numbers in the complaint or seek a binding stipulation capping recovery below $5 million.
Why It Matters
CAFA removal is a routine but consequential battleground in California wage-and-hour class actions. Defendants strongly prefer the federal forum, while plaintiffs’ counsel routinely move to remand on amount-in-controversy grounds. This decision is a clean modern application of the Dart Cherokee framework and the Northern District’s standard methodology for evaluating CAFA amount-in-controversy in wage-and-hour cases.
For California employers facing wage-and-hour class actions, the case reinforces that vague complaints alleging violations “at times” to “some” of the class will not anchor a successful remand strategy. For plaintiffs’ counsel, the case is a reminder that to keep a wage-and-hour class action in state court, the complaint or a binding stipulation must explicitly cap aggregate recovery below $5 million.