Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff David Hunter filed a wage and hour class action in California state court on June 25, 2026, against CareFusion Resources, LLC and Becton Dickinson and Company, alleging nine causes of action including failure to pay wages and overtime, meal and rest period violations, and unfair business practices. Hunter worked for Defendants as a non-exempt field services technician from approximately July 2022 through July 2025 in San Diego County. On July 31, 2026, Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, asserting diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
On August 27, 2026, Hunter moved to remand to state court, arguing the Court lacked CAFA jurisdiction because the mandatory home state exception applied: more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were California citizens, CareFusion was the only primary defendant, and CareFusion was a California citizen. Defendants opposed, contending CareFusion was not a California citizen. The Court resolved the motion on the parties' papers without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court denied the motion to remand. Once CAFA jurisdiction is established, the party seeking remand bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an exception applies. The mandatory home state exception requires a district court to decline jurisdiction where two-thirds or more of all proposed class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed.
The Court found CareFusion was not a California citizen. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10), an LLC is a citizen of its state of organization and the state of its principal place of business. CareFusion is organized under Delaware law, and under the 'nerve center' test of Hertz Corp. v. Friend, its principal place of business is New Jersey, where its officers are primarily located, according to a declaration from its Director of Human Resources. Hunter's reliance on CareFusion's Statement of Information listing a California 'Principal Address' was insufficient because it showed only a physical location, not the actual center of direction, control, and coordination of corporate activity.
The Court also denied as moot Hunter's request for leave to amend the complaint to show CareFusion was his direct employer and sole primary defendant, because the home state exception failed on citizenship grounds, not on the primary-defendant question.
Key Takeaways
- Under CAFA, the party seeking remand bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies.
- An LLC's citizenship under CAFA turns on its state of organization and its principal place of business under the 'nerve center' test, which looks to where the corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activity.
- A Statement of Information listing a state 'Principal Address' does not establish principal place of business absent evidence that the location is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination.
- A declaration from a corporate officer locating the corporation's officers outside the forum state can suffice to establish principal place of business under the nerve center test.
- Pre-Hertz authority that does not apply the nerve center test is not persuasive on principal place of business under CAFA.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Hertz's nerve center test to CAFA's home state exception, emphasizing that a listed in-state address or mere physical presence does not establish citizenship; the inquiry focuses on where officers actually direct corporate activity. It confirms that the remand movant must prove the exception with competent evidence of where corporate decision-making authority sits.
The ruling shows plaintiffs face a steep burden invoking the home state exception when defendants submit declarations placing their officers outside the forum state, and that courts will disregard pre-Hertz cases that do not apply the nerve center test.