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.

Gallegos v. Atria Management Co., LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

August 4, 2016

Destiny Gallegos
v.
Atria Management Company, LLC et al.

         Order (1) DENYING Plaintiff Destiny Gallegos’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 22); and (2) VACATING the August 8, 2016 Hearing (IN CHAMBERS)

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

          The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On 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 ¶¶ 14-20.)

         On May 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 following documents:

. Declaration of Phyllis Smith (“Smith Decl.” Doc. No. 5); and
. Declaration of Elizabeth Levy and an accompanying exhibit (Doc. No. 6).

         On June 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand, disputing Defendants’ calculation of the amount in controversy in this action. (Doc. No. 22, 22-1.)

         On July 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. 23-1).[1]

         On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 25.)

         II. ...


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.