Marlin Mejia v. Chico's Fas, Inc.

facts, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties. Mejia has alleged a laundry list of violations based on what it asserts are Chico’s policies and practices. Because of that, and because it isn’t unreasonable to assume that most of the alleged violations over the multiple years at issue in this case occurred more than 30 days before the suit was filed, it isn’t unreasonable to assume that each separated employee was entitled to the maximum 30-day waiting time penalty. See Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., 28 F.4th 989, 993–94 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2022); Lopez v. Adidas America, Inc., 2021 WL 927265, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021). And Chico’s has presented evidence showing the approximate number of separated nonexempt employees during that time and their average pay rates and shift lengths. Therefore, Chico’s estimate that this claim places $3,592,779.12 in controversy is reasonable. Chico’s assumption of a 29.3% violation rate for Mejia’s rest period claim is also reasonable in light of the complaint’s allegation that Chico’s has a “policy” and “rule” unlawfully prohibiting employees from taking unconstrained walks during their rest…