Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanchez v. Russell Sigler, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 28, 2015

Steven Sanchez
v.
Russell Sigler, Inc.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

ANDRÉ BIROTTE, Jr., District Judge.

Proceedings: [In Chambers] Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 15)

On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff Steven Sanchez filed a complaint ("Compl., " Dkt. No. 1-1) in Los Angeles Superior Court against his former employer, Defendant Russell Sigler, Inc. On February 25, 2015, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, claiming that the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C.§§ 1332(d) and 1446, vests this Court with original jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, filed March 27, 2015 ("Mot., " Dkt. No. 15). Defendant filed an opposition ("Opp'n, " Dkt. No. 16), and Plaintiff filed a reply ("Reply, " Dkt. No. 17). On April 24, 2014, the Court took Plaintiff's Motion to Remand under submission. (Dkt. No. 20). Having considered the materials submitted by the parties, and for the reasons indicated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly, non-exempt employee in California from October, 2007 until February, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 18.) On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant. ( See Compl.) The class action's single cause of action alleges that Defendant violated California Business and Professions Code ("UCL") §§ 17200, et seq . Plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, which allows for the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties in an actions that benefit the public interest. (Compl. ¶ 46.)

A. Proposed Class

Plaintiff defines the proposed class as "[a]ll current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals employed by any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment." (Compl. ¶ 13.)

B. Alleged Conduct

Plaintiff bases his UCL claim on various California Labor Code provisions. He alleges Defendant violated California labor laws by:

• "[a]t all material times..., " failing to pay Plaintiff and putative class members overtime wages "for all hours worked" in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198; (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 49)
• "[a]t all material times..., " failing to provide Plaintiff and putative class members with "uninterrupted meal and rest periods" in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a); (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 50)
• "[a]t all material times..., " failing to pay Plaintiff and putative class members "at least minimum wages for all hours worked" in violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197 and 1197.1; (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 52)
• "[a]t all material times..., " failing to pay Plaintiff and putative class members "all wages owed to them upon discharge or resignation" in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202; (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 53)
• "[a]t all material times..., " failing to pay Plaintiff and putative class members wages in a timely manner in violation of California Labor Code § 204; (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 54)
• "[a]t all material times..., " failing to provide Plaintiff and putative class members "complete or accurate wage statements" in violation of California Labor Code § 226(a); (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 55)
• "[a]t all material times..., " failing "to keep complete or accurate payroll records" for Plaintiff and putative class members in violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d); (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 56)
• "[a]t all material times..., " failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and putative class members in order to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.