NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 1 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID TOWNSEND, individually and on No. 23-55044 behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:22-cv-05185-PA-MAA

v.

MEMORANDUM*

J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES INC,

an Arkansas corporation; J.B. HUNT

TRANSPORT INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2023 Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

This appeal considers whether the amount in controversy in a putative class

action removed from state court is in excess of $5 million and therefore supports

federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(d)(2). The district court found the amount in controversy insufficient under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. CAFA and remanded the action to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand with instructions for the district court to

exercise jurisdiction.

The operative state-court complaint alleged that defendants J.B. Hunt

Transport Services, Inc. and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (collectively “Hunt”)

violated California law by “regularly requir[ing]” drivers “to work without being

paid minimum wage.” It included claims based on Hunt’s alleged failure “to

compensate Plaintiff and Class Members, each and every day, at least minimum

wage for their lawfully required rest breaks,” and to provide accurate wage

statements. The complaint alleged that the class members were “entitled up to a

maximum of $4,000 each” as a result of Hunt’s failure to provide complete and

accurate wage statements alone.

The amount in controversy “encompasses all relief a court may grant . . . if

the plaintiff is victorious,” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 414–

15 (9th Cir. 2018), and represents “the maximum recovery the plaintiff could

reasonably recover,” Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 927 (9th

Cir. 2019). The amount in controversy is calculated based on the well-pleaded

allegations in the complaint, see, e.g., Chavez, 888 F.3d at 416, and those

allegations make plain that the amount in controversy here exceeds $5 million.

Indeed, plaintiff’s claim that each driver is entitled to “up to $4,000” for Hunt’s

2 alleged failure to provide statutorily compliant wage statements is alone sufficient

to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold, given that the number of drivers in

the putative class exceeds 2,100. We accordingly reverse and remand with

instructions for the district court to exercise CAFA jurisdiction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

3