Victor Garibay v. Archstone Communities LLC

finding that the defendant improperly “assume[d] that each employee would be entitled to the maximum statutory penalty, but provide[d] no evidence supporting that assertion.” | finding that the defendant improperly JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 19-10222 PA (AFMx | holding insufficient a declaration by a payroll officer setting forth “only the number of employees during the relevant period, the number of pay periods, and general information about hourly employee wages”’ | holding similar calculation assumed that “every single member of the class would be entitled to recover penalties for every single pay period” was not supported by evidence and could not be used to calculate the amount in controversy | affirming order remanding case in wage-and-hour action removed pursuant to CAFA where "defendants rely on speculative and self-serving assumptions about key unknown variables" | rejecting an employer’s maximum wage statement penalty calculation because the employer provided no evidence to support its assertion | rejecting defendant’s assumption that each employee was entitled to maximum statutory penalty because the assumption was not supported by any evidence | rejecting defendants’ assumption that each employee would be entitled to the maximum penalty because defendants do not provide evidence to support that assertion | rejecting 25% in attorneys’ fees where the defendant 11 had not established that the underlying amount upon which the fee would be based was at least $4 12 million | affirming district court’s order of remand in a CAFA case where defendant’s argument that all plaintiffs would be entitled to the maximum statutory penalty under § 203 was unsupported by evidence | affirming district court’s order remanding case based on failure to show $5 million amount in controversy, finding the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 25-3302 PA (MAAx | finding the defendants failed to provide evidence that the assumption of two rest 4 break violations per week was “more appropriate” than one violation per pay period or one 5 violation per month | finding the defendants failed to provide 1 evidence that the assumption of two rest break violations per week was “more 2 appropriate” than one violation per pay period or one violation per month | finding the defendants failed to provide evidence that the assumption of two rest 15 break violations per week was “more appropriate” than one violation per pay period or one 16 violation per month | finding the defendants failed to provide evidence that the assumption of two rest 15 break violations per week was “more appropriate” than one violation per pay period or one 16 violation per month | affirming the 22 lower court’s finding that defendant failed to meet their burden of proof with their 23 assumption that “every single member of the class would be entitled to recover 24 penalties for every single pay period” | affirming district court’s order remanding case based on failure to show $5 million amount in controversy, finding the defendant improperly “assume[d] that each employee would be entitled to the maximum statutory penalty, but provide[d] no evidence supporting that assertion.” | affirming district court’s order remanding case based on failure to show $5 million amount in controversy, finding the defendant improperly “assume[d] that each employee would be entitled to the maximum statutory penalty, but provide[d] no evidence supporting that assertion.” | affirming district court’s order remanding case based on failure to show $5 million amount in controversy, finding the defendant improperly “assume[d] that each employee would be entitled to the maximum statutory penalty, but provide[d] no evidence supporting that assertion.” | rejecting calculation of amount in controversy where the only evidence provided was “a declaration by [defendants’] supervisor of payroll, which set[ ] fort