Tuong Hoang v. Supervalu Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs, who are hourly supermarket pharmacists, filed this putative class action against their former employers in California state court, alleging various violations of California wage and hour law. Defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2). The district court sua sponte remanded the case to state court on the ground that Defendants had failed to show “to a legal certainty” that this case meets the $5,000,000 minimum amount in controversy required for federal jurisdiction under CAFA. Defendants appeal the remand order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1453 (c), and we reverse and remand.

When it is “unclear or ambiguous from the face of a state-court complaint whether the requisite amount in controversy is pled[,] ... we apply a preponderance of the evidence standard” to determine whether the removing party has met the amount in controversy requirement. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.2007). However, when a state-court complaint clearly and unambiguously alleges that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the “party…