United States District Court, C.D. California
(1) DENYING Plaintiff Destiny Gallegos’s Motion to
Remand (Doc. No. 22); and (2) VACATING the August 8, 2016
Hearing (IN CHAMBERS)
Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Destiny Gallegos’s Motion to
Remand (“Motion, ” Doc. No. 22). The Court finds
this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing.
See Local Rule 7-15; Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. After
considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition
to the Motion, the Court DENIES the Motion to Remand. The
August 8, 2016 hearing is VACATED.
March 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a putative class action
Complaint in the California Superior Court for the County of
San Bernardino against Defendants Atria Management Company,
LLC (“Atria Management”) and Atria Senior Living,
Inc. (“Atria Senior Living”) (collectively,
“Defendants”). (Doc. No. 1-1.) Defendants are a
privately-held for-profit senior housing company.
(Id.) Plaintiff asserts nine wage-and-hour claims,
including: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to
pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4)
failure to provide rest periods; (5) non-compliant wage
statements and failure to maintain accurate payroll records;
(6) failure to pay wages upon termination; (7) unreimbursed
business expenses; and (8) two claims for violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).
(Id.) Plaintiff’s claims arise from her
employment by Defendants as a non-exempt server at their
facility in San Dimas, California from June 2013 to November
2015. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff purports to
represent a class encompassing all persons who worked for
Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee at any of
Defendants’ California facilities from March 25, 2012
to the date of trial in this matter. (Id
2, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, basing removal
jurisdiction on the Class Action Fairness Act
(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Not. of
Removal, Doc. No. 1.) Defendants calculated that the total
amount in controversy for Plaintiffs claims exceeds $5, 000,
000, for purposes of removal jurisdiction under CAFA.
(Id. at 8-13.) In support, Defendants filed the
. Declaration of Phyllis Smith (“Smith
Decl.” Doc. No. 5); and
. Declaration of Elizabeth Levy and an
accompanying exhibit (Doc. No. 6).
22, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand, disputing
Defendants’ calculation of the amount in controversy in
this action. (Doc. No. 22, 22-1.)
1, 2016, Defendants filed an Opposition. (Doc. No. 23.) In
support, Defendants filed the following documents:
. Supplemental Declaration of Phyllis Smith
(“Supp. Smith Decl., ” Doc. No. 24); and
. Request for Judicial Notice
(“RJN”) of four exhibits (Doc. No.
11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 25.)