Opinion
No. 19-56119
10-30-2019
RANDOLPH FITCH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC.; SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00590-RGK-MAA MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 21, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). --------
Shaw Industries, Inc. (Shaw) appeals from the district court's sua sponte remand of Randolph Fitch's putative class action against Shaw for allegedly not properly paying its hourly non-exempt workers. The district court held that Shaw had not made the requisite showing that the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
This appeal is controlled by our recent decision in Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019), which vacated a similar remand order. In Arias we held "that when a notice of removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a district court may not remand the case back to state court without first giving the defendant an opportunity to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied." Id. at 925. We conclude that in this case Shaw's notice of removal "plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction," and accordingly we vacate the district court's sua sponte remand order.
On remand, should the district court again consider remanding this action to the state court, it should follow our holdings in Arias that: (1) "a removing defendant's notice of removal 'need not contain evidentiary submissions' but only plausible allegations of the jurisdictional elements"; (2) "when a defendant's allegations of removal jurisdiction are challenged, the defendant's showing on the amount in controversy may rely on reasonable assumptions"; and (3) "when a statute or contract provides for the recovery of attorneys' fees, prospective attorneys' fees must be included in the assessment of the amount in controversy." Id. at 922 (quoting Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 755 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015)).
The district court's order remanding this action to the state court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the district court.