Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lais Pedroso filed a putative wage-and-hour class action in Los Angeles Superior Court against several entities alleged to have jointly employed workers. After removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), she sought remand, arguing that the controversy belonged in California because the proposed class and a central defendant were California citizens.
The dispute turned on CAFA’s mandatory and discretionary home-state exceptions. Both require attention to the citizenship of the proposed class and the “primary defendants.” Pedroso characterized one California entity as the principal wrongdoer and the other companies as secondary or derivative actors.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied remand. The complaint itself described the corporate defendants as joint employers and sought to hold them directly liable across the asserted claims. That pleading theory outweighed selective references portraying one entity as the main actor. The non-California companies therefore counted as primary defendants.
Because all primary defendants were not citizens of California, the mandatory home-state exception did not apply. The same defect foreclosed the discretionary exception, so the court did not need to resolve whether the proposed class met the competing one-third or two-thirds California-citizenship thresholds.
Key Takeaways
- CAFA’s home-state analysis looks to the complaint’s real liability theory, not simply the plaintiff’s preferred description on remand.
- Alleging that multiple entities are joint employers can make each a primary defendant.
- The citizenship of even one directly liable primary defendant may defeat both home-state exceptions.
- Plaintiffs planning a state-court class action should evaluate removal consequences before pleading broad joint-employer or alter-ego theories.
Why It Matters
California employment class actions frequently involve operating companies, contractors, and national affiliates. This decision shows how pleading direct responsibility against that broader group can secure a federal forum even when the workers and day-to-day employer are centered in California.
Defense counsel should compare a remand motion against the complaint claim by claim. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, should not assume that labeling one local entity the principal defendant will overcome allegations imposing direct liability on out-of-state companies.