{"id":451,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=451"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"pitsick-perez-southwest-paga-remand-amount-in-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=451","title":{"rendered":"Pitsick-Perez v. Southwest Airlines \u2014 S.D. Cal. Remands PAGA Action After Defendant Fails to Show $75,000 Amount in Controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Pitsick-Perez v. Southwest Airlines Co.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-03000<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
PAGA, removal jurisdiction, amount in controversy, attorney fees calculation methods, lodestar versus percentage benchmark<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Raymond Pitsick-Perez sued Southwest Airlines in San Diego Superior Court under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The case allegedly centers on a narrow issue \u2014 whether Southwest had to pay employees for time spent waiting for and taking the shuttle to and from a remote parking lot \u2014 with three other derivative wage-statement and timing claims piggy-backing on it.<\/p>\n

Southwest removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 when attorney’s fees and PAGA penalties for the named plaintiff’s individual claim were combined. Pitsick-Perez moved to remand, contesting Southwest’s amount-in-controversy calculations.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted remand. Diversity of citizenship was met (California plaintiff vs. Texas-headquartered defendant), but the amount-in-controversy element failed.<\/p>\n

Under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law (Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens<\/em>; Hunter v. Phillip Morris<\/em>), defendants bear the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, and ambiguity is resolved in favor of remand. Where the plaintiff contests the amount in controversy, both sides submit proof and the court decides by a preponderance of the evidence.<\/p>\n

Southwest’s calculations included roughly $25,000 to $26,000 in PAGA penalties plus a large attorney-fees number. The court rejected the fee number under both possible calculation methods. Under the lodestar method (hours \u00d7 reasonable rate), Southwest tried to use a 150-hour estimate based on plaintiff’s counsel’s prior declaration in a different PAGA case. The court found that declaration unreliable because the prior case involved class-wide settlement work, not individual claim work, and many of the listed tasks were obviously class-related. Southwest’s broader argument that wage-and-hour cases “typically” require more than 100 hours rested on cases involving eight or nine separate causes of action \u2014 distinguishable from this narrow shuttle-time case.<\/p>\n

Under the 25% benchmark method commonly used in California PAGA fee analyses, even using Southwest’s highest penalty estimate of $25,400 produced an attorneys’ fee award of about $6,350 and a total amount in controversy of about $31,750 \u2014 well below the $75,000 threshold. Even adding a representative-service award (which the plaintiff disputed applied) did not move the needle.<\/p>\n

Because Southwest could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy element under either fee calculation, the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and the case was remanded to San Diego Superior Court.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n