{"id":489,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=489"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"thornhill-mclane-cafa-remand-amount-in-controversy-wage-hour","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=489","title":{"rendered":"Thornhill v. McLane Foodservice \u2014 N.D. Cal. denies remand of CAFA wage-and-hour class action, finds $5M+ in controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
John Thornhill v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-07475<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Class Action Fairness Act; CAFA; remand; amount in controversy; California Labor Code; Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens<\/em>; class allegations of “at times” violations<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cat times\u201d to \u201csome of, but not necessarily all of, the Class,\u201d without specific facts about job duties, work patterns, or the circumstances of alleged Labor Code violations.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the motion to remand.<\/p>\n

Under Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n

Even applying conservative assumptions about violation rates and excluding speculative damages categories, McLane\u2019s aggregated calculations across the eight causes of action and CAFA-permitted attorney\u2019s fees easily exceeded the $5 million CAFA threshold. The court noted that the complaint\u2019s vague \u201cat times\u201d allegations did not cap the alleged violation rates; in CAFA practice, courts use the complaint\u2019s broadest plausible reading combined with conservative defense-side assumptions to estimate the amount at stake.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s argument that McLane\u2019s 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\u2019s amount-in-controversy requirement was met, complete diversity was uncontested, and the case remained in federal court.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n