{"id":462,"date":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=462"},"modified":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","slug":"austin-flowers-bakeries-cd-cal-wage-class-remand-attorney-fee-estimate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=462","title":{"rendered":"Austin v. Flowers Bakeries Sales \u2014 C.D. Cal. Sends Wage Class Action Back to State Court Over Speculative Attorney-Fee Estimate"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Tristan Austin v. Flowers Bakeries Sales of SoCal, LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-12<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-10510-ODW<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal, class action, amount in controversy, attorneys\u2019 fees, wage and hour, diversity jurisdiction<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Tristan Austin worked for Flowers Bakeries Sales of SoCal, LLC, as an hourly, non-exempt employee for about three months in early 2025. He filed a putative class action \u2014 a lawsuit that one named plaintiff brings on behalf of similarly situated workers \u2014 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging six California wage-and-hour violations: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, denial of accrued paid sick time, inaccurate wage statements, late final wages, and unfair business practices.<\/p>\n

Flowers removed the case to federal court under the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332, which allows a defendant to move a case from state court to federal court when the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is at stake. Flowers conceded that Austin\u2019s individual damages would be only about $6,550, but argued that anticipated attorneys\u2019 fees would push the total over the threshold. Austin moved to remand.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted remand. Although attorneys\u2019 fees can count toward the amount in controversy when the underlying statute authorizes them, the removing defendant must still prove the figure with \u201csummary-judgment-type evidence\u201d by a preponderance \u2014 not by guesswork.<\/p>\n

The court held that Flowers\u2019s fee estimate failed on two independent grounds. First, the projection that Austin\u2019s lawyers would log 124 hours at a $760 blended hourly rate was unsupported. Flowers cited an unrelated out-of-district case in which counsel had charged similar rates, but offered no explanation of why that case was comparable. The Ninth Circuit requires the cited cases to be \u201csimilar enough\u201d that one could reasonably expect a similar fee award.<\/p>\n

Second, even if the fee estimate were credible, Ninth Circuit law (Gibson v. Chrysler and the more recent Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark) bars attributing all attorneys\u2019 fees in a class action solely to the named plaintiff for the amount-in-controversy analysis. Fees must be spread across the class. The court rejected Flowers\u2019s attempts to distinguish those cases \u2014 including its argument that the fees were calculated only on Austin\u2019s individual claims \u2014 because the suit is in fact a putative class action. Spread across the class, the fees fell well below $75,000.<\/p>\n

Because Flowers carried the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and any doubt is resolved in favor of remand, the court returned the case to state court and denied the company\u2019s pending motion to dismiss as moot.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n