Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Case 4:18-cv-06807-PJH Document 26-3 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 3

1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP


Katherine V.A. Smith, SBN 247866
2 ksmith@gibsondunn.com
Elizabeth A. Dooley, SBN 292358
3 edooley@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
5 Facsimile: 213.229.7520
6 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Jason C. Schwartz (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
7 jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
Greta B. Williams, SBN 267695
8 gbwilliams@gibsondunn.com
1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
9 Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
10 Facsimile: 202.467.0539
11 Attorneys for Defendant VOX MEDIA, INC.
12

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
OAKLAND DIVISION
16

17

18 TAMRYN SPRUILL, individually and on CASE NO. 18-cv-06807-PJH


behalf of all those similarly situated,
19
Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
20 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
v.
21 Date: February 20, 2019
VOX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 (d.b.a. SB NATION); and DOES 1 to 10 Dept: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor
inclusive, Before: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
23 Trial Date: None Set
Defendants. Action Filed: September 21, 2018
24

25

26

27

28

Gibson, Dunn &


Crutcher LLP

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND--18-CV-06807-PJH


Case 4:18-cv-06807-PJH Document 26-3 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 3

1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Tamryn Spruill’s Motion to Remand, Dkt. # 23.
2 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
3 Under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), federal courts have original jurisdiction over
4 class actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million in the aggregate for the entire class,
5 exclusive of interest and costs; the putative class action contains at least 100 members; and any
6 member of the putative class is a citizen of a state different from that of any defendant. See 28
7 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B), and (d)(6).
8 Plaintiff Tamryn Spruill initially filed this lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on
9 September 21, 2018. On November 9, 2018, Defendant Vox Media timely filed its Notice of
10 Removal, Dkt. #1, asserting that all of CAFA’s requirements were met and invoking the jurisdiction
11 of this Court. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Remand, challenging this Court’s jurisdiction
12 on the grounds that Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the putative
13 class contains more than 100 individuals and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Dkt. #
14 23. In response, Defendant Vox Media filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion and submitted
15 additional evidence and a revised calculation of the amount in controversy of approximately $6.3
16 million. Dkt. # __.
17 A defendant seeking removal “bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence
18 that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million when federal jurisdiction is challenged.”
19 Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant has shown, by a
20 preponderance of the evidence, that the putative class exceeds 100 individuals. An employee of
21 Defendant reviewed the pay records for Content Contributors, including the most recent address for
22 individuals in the pay system. Based on that information, an estimated 258 Content Contributors
23 performed work in California the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. This best estimate is
24 sufficient and competent evidence to establish that the class exceeds 100 individuals.
25 Defendant has also shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
26 controversy exceeds $5 million. Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand offers
27 additional evidence and an individualized assessment of each putative class member’s alleged
28 damages. This additional evidence and analysis includes Vox Media’s: (1) estimate of the average

Gibson, Dunn &


Crutcher LLP 1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND--18-CV-06807-PJH
Case 4:18-cv-06807-PJH Document 26-3 Filed 01/04/19 Page 3 of 3

1 time allegedly worked per week for each putative class member while the sports team the individual
2 covers is in season, based on the individual’s role at the blog, e.g. contributor, Deputy Manager, or
3 Site Manager; (2) estimate of stipend payments to putative class members based on individual pay
4 data; (3) estimate of the minimum wage rate for each individual based on the time period during
5 which each individual received stipends from Vox Media; and (4) analysis of the league with which
6 each Content Contributor’s team brand. Based on this individualized data, Vox Media calculated the
7 alleged amount in controversy as follows:
8 Alleged unpaid minimum wages pursuant to Labor Code § 1194: $1,303,900
9 Alleged liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2: $1,303,900
10 Alleged civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1197.1: $2,106,300
11 Alleged damages from meal and rest break violations: $ 110,676
12 Alleged damages from failure to provide accurate wage statements: $ 240,250
13 Attorneys’ fees assessed at 25% of the alleged damages: $ 1,266,279
14 As such, the total alleged amount in controversy based on Defendant’s evidence, allegations
15 in the Complaint, and reasonable inferences is approximately $6.3 million, well above the $5 million
16 threshold required to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under CAFA.
17 Because Defendant has carried its burden to establish CAFA jurisdiction by a preponderance
18 of the evidence, and in light of Congress’s intention that “CAFA [is] to be interpreted expansively” in
19 favor of federal jurisdiction, Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1197, this Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to
20 Remand.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated: _________________, 2019
23 Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief United
24 States District Judge

25

26

27

28

Gibson, Dunn &


Crutcher LLP 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND--18-CV-06807-PJH