Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The case was removed from state court under the Class Action Fairness Act on June 4, 2026. On July 1, 2026, Jorge Cazares Rodriguez filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging a putative wage-and-hour class action against HV Global Group, Inc., a California real estate services company. He alleges he worked for it as a non-exempt hourly employee from July 2019 to June 2025. The FAC pleads nine causes of action, including minimum wage, overtime, meal period, rest period, wage statement, and final wage claims, and alleges the amount in controversy is under $5,000,000.
Minimal diversity and a class of at least 100 were undisputed. Plaintiff moved to remand solely on the amount in controversy, arguing that defendant needed admissible evidence of violation rates. Defendant opposed with a declaration from Candace Shipp reporting about 350 current and former non-exempt employees, 25,000 workweeks, a $21.50 average pay rate, shifts averaging over seven hours, more than 12,500 biweekly pay periods, and 220 separated employees. The declaration gave no violation rate; defendant instead derived rates from the FAC's allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to remand. Applying Dart Cherokee and Perez v. Rose Hills, it held that a removing defendant may rely on reasonable assumptions grounded in the complaint. It need not prove its own liability, and it need not submit evidence of violation rates unless its assumptions are unreasonable. The court measured jurisdiction against the operative FAC rather than the original complaint, citing Faulk and Royal Canin, and found the amount in controversy could exceed $5,000,000.
The court did not accept every assumption. It accepted a 40% rate (two violations per week) for meal periods, because the FAC alleged breaks missed from time to time but also late, missed, or interrupted at least weekly and multiple times at month end, for $1,075,000. It rejected defendant's 100% rest-period assumption ($5,375,000) as inconsistent with allegations of time-to-time, periodic, and regular violations. It accepted 40% instead, given plaintiff's claim that he rarely took rest breaks, again $1,075,000. It accepted two unpaid hours per week for the overtime and minimum-wage claims, $2,312,500 combined. The order states the overtime component as $1,612,600, though its inputs yield $1,612,500. For wage statements it accepted $700,000, assuming half the class (175 members) reached the $4,000 cap, since the cap requires about 41 pay periods and average tenure exceeded 2.5 years. For waiting-time penalties it accepted a 100% rate for 220 separated employees because the claim rests on the other alleged violations, for $1,011,790. The total was $6,174,290.
The court did not reach defendant's arguments about injunctive relief and attorney's fees, and it vacated the October 30, 2026 hearing. The ruling decides only jurisdiction. It makes no finding that any wage violation occurred or that defendant owes anything, and the case continues in federal court.
Key Takeaways
- A CAFA defendant may rely on a reasoned chain of assumptions drawn from the operative complaint and generally need not present evidence of violation rates.
- Language such as from time to time supported about a 20% rate, while added allegations of weekly or month-end violations supported 40% here.
- Pattern-and-practice allegations do not by themselves show a violation on every shift, and the court refused to assume 100% for rest periods.
- Waiting-time penalties tied to other alleged violations can support a 100% rate when the complaint alleges ongoing violations.
- Jurisdiction is measured against the operative complaint, including post-removal amendments, so an amended pleading can change the analysis.
Why It Matters
This unpublished district court order is not binding precedent, but it shows how a Southern District judge applies Perez v. Rose Hills in practice. Its line-by-line approach, accepting some assumptions and trimming others, offers removing defendants and remand-seeking plaintiffs a practical guide to how pleading words translate into violation rates.
Although the FAC itself alleged less than $5 million, the court computed the amount in controversy from the allegations and the class data. The order resolves only the forum question, so the merits and any class certification issues remain open.