Ninth Circuit So Holds, Even Though There Does Seem To Be A Split Among Other District Courts.
In Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, No. 19-55803 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019) (published), defendant filed a notice of removal of a state court wage/hour class action case to federal court. It did so under the Class Action Fairness Act based on its estimate of damages and prospective attorney’s fees allowed under various labor statutes. The district judge sua sponte remanded back to state court based on its view that the CAFA removal amount-in-controversy requirement was not met. The Ninth Circuit reversed, determining defendant should have had the opportunity to present some proof on the amount-in-controversy threshold. It also found that, notwithstanding a split among district courts, it had, in a prior opinion, countenanced the inclusion of prospective attorney’s fees allowable under a statute of contract for purposes of determining the amount in controversy. (Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 788, 794 (9th Cir. 2018).)
Comments