Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

1/34

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1937

DAVI D ROMULUS, CASSANDRA BEALE, NI CHOLAS HARRI S,ASHLEY HI LARI O, AND ROBERT BOURASSA, on behal f of t hemsel ves

and al l ot her per sons si mi l ar l y si t uat ed,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ees,

v.

CVS PHARMACY, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Rya W. Zobel , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Howar d, Ci r cui t J udges.

J ames Nor man Boudr eau, wi t h whom J ohn F. Far r aher , J r . , andGr eenber g Tr aur i g, LLP wer e on br i ef f or appel l ant .

Thomas V. Ur my, J r . , wi t h whom Rachel M. Br own, Pat r i ck J .Val l el y, and Shapi r o Haber & Ur my LLP wer e on br i ef f or appel l ees.

Oct ober 24, 2014


2/34

LYNCH, Chief Judge. CVS Phar macy, I nc. t akes t hi s

i nt er l ocut or y appeal f r oman or der gr ant i ng t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on

t o r emand a put at i ve cl ass act i on f or wage and hour vi ol at i ons. I n

t hi s case of f i r st i mpr essi on i n t hi s ci r cui t , we cl ar i f y t he

r emoval t i me per i ods and mechani sms under t he Cl ass Act i on Fai r ness

Act of 2005 ( "CAFA") .

Under CAFA, f eder al cour t s have j ur i sdi ct i on over a cl ass

act i on i f , among other r equi r ement s, t he amount i n cont r over sy

exceeds $5 mi l l i on. St andar d Fi r e I ns. Co. v. Knowl es, 133 S. Ct .

1345, 1347 ( 2013) ( ci t i ng 28 U. S. C. 1332( d) ( 2) , ( d) ( 5) ) . Sect i on

1446( b) speci f i es t wo t i me per i ods wi t hi n whi ch a def endant must

r emove a cl ass act i on t hat sat i sf i es CAFA' s j ur i sdi ct i onal

r equi r ement s f r om st at e cour t t o f eder al cour t . See 28 U. S. C.

1453( b) ( appl yi ng Sect i on 1446( b) ( 1) and ( b) ( 3) t o cl ass

acti ons) . I f t he case as st at ed by t he i ni t i al pl eadi ng i s

r emovabl e, Sect i on 1446( b) ( 1) r equi r es t he def endant t o remove

wi t hi n t hi r t y days of i t s r ecei pt . See i d. 1446( b) ( 1) . Secti on

1446( b) ( 3) r equi r es t he def endant t o remove wi t hi n t hi r t y days of

r ecei vi ng a subsequent paper f r omwhi ch i t may f i r st be ascer t ai ned

t hat t he cl ass act i on i s or has become r emovabl e. See i d.

1446( b) ( 3) .

The di st r i ct cour t grant ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o

r emand f or several r easons. Romul us v. CVS Pharmacy, I nc. , No. 13-

10305- RWZ, 2014 WL 1271767 ( D. Mass. Mar . 27, 2014) [ her ei naf t er

-2-


3/34

Romul us I I ] . I t hel d t hat CVS' s not i ce of r emoval came t oo l at e t o

meet t he t hi r t y- day deadl i ne i n Sect i on 1446( b) ( 1) , and t hat t he

second t hi r t y- day deadl i ne i n Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) di d not appl y.

I d. at *2- 3. I t t hen hel d t hat CVS had not met i t s bur den t o

est abl i sh t he subst ant i ve amount i n cont r over sy r equi r ement . I d.

at *3 n. 3. We r ever se. We hol d t hat CVS' s second not i ce of

r emoval was t i mel y under Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) , and t hat CVS

suf f i ci ent l y demonst r ated t hat t he amount i n cont r over sy exceeds $5

mi l l i on. Removal was appr opr i at e; r emand was not . 1

We r esol ve t he pr evi ousl y unanswer ed quest i on i n t hi s

ci r cui t as t o when t he two t i me l i mi t s i n Sect i on 1446( b) mandat e

r emoval wi t hi n t hi r t y days. I n l i ne wi t h t he ot her ci r cui t s that

have adopt ed a br i ght - l i ne appr oach, we hol d t hat t he t i me l i mi t s

i n Sect i on 1446( b) appl y when t he pl ai nt i f f s' pl eadi ngs or t he

pl ai nt i f f s' ot her paper s pr ovi de t he def endant wi t h a cl ear

st at ement of t he damages sought or wi t h suf f i ci ent f act s f r omwhi ch

damages can be r eadi l y cal cul ated. We al so cl ar i f y t he meani ng of

t he st at ut or y t er m "ot her paper . " 28 U. S. C. 1446( b) ( 3) . On t he

mer i t s, we hol d t hat CVS has adequat el y met i t s bur den t o show

r emoval .

1 The pl ai nt i f f s chose a st at e f or um and pr ef er t o r emai nt her e. So, f or r emoval pur poses, t hei r i ncent i ves ar e t o mi ni mi zedamages. Def endant CVS pr ef er s t he case t o be i n f ederal cour t .So, i t s i ncent i ves ar e t o maxi mi ze damages at pr esent f or CAFAr emoval . Of cour se, at t r i al , t hose i ncent i ves ar e r ever sed.

-3-


4/34

I . Pr ocedur al Hi st or y

Named pl ai nt i f f s Davi d Romul us, Cassandr a Beal e, Ni chol as

Har r i s, Ashl ey Hi l ar i o, and Rober t Bour assa, al l "Shi f t

Super vi sor s" at CVS st or es i n Massachuset t s, f i l ed a Fi r st Amended

Cl ass Act i on Compl ai nt agai nst CVS i n Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t

on August 31, 2011. 2 The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat CVS has a pol i cy

under whi ch Shi f t Supervi sor s must r emai n on st ore pr emi ses when

t aki ng rest or meal br eaks when t here ar e no ot her manager i al

empl oyees on duty or when t her e i s onl y one ot her empl oyee on dut y.

Despi t e r equi r i ng Shi f t Super vi sor s t o st ay on st or e pr emi ses, t he

pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat CVS does not pay t hem f or t hese "breaks" i n

vi ol at i on of t he Massachuset t s Wage Act , Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,

148, and t he Massachuset t s Over t i me St at ut e, Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

151, 1A, 1B.

The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat "CVS has empl oyed many

hundr eds, i f not t housands, of Shi f t Super vi sors i n Massachuset t s"

si nce J ul y 25, 2008. They seek unpai d wages ( i ncl udi ng over t i me

wages) , t r ebl e damages, i nt er est , at t or neys' f ees, and cost s f or

t hose br eaks i n t he cl ass per i od dur i ng whi ch t hey wer e r equi r ed t o

st ay on st or e pr emi ses. The pl ai nt i f f s di d not pr ovi de i nf or mat i on

on t he number of br eaks at i ssue, or t he t ot al amount of damages

sought i n t he Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt .

2 The or i gi nal compl ai nt was f i l ed on J ul y 26, 2011, but wasnever ser ved.

-4-


5/34

CVS, per haps i n an abundance of caut i on, never t hel ess

sought t o remove wi t hi n t hi r t y days of servi ce, on Sept ember 30,

2011. To cal cul at e t he pl ai nt i f f s' damages, CVS r el i ed on a ser i es

of est i mat es. Assumi ng t hat t he cl ass members l ost each meal br eak

dur i ng t he cl ass per i od, CVS cal cul at ed t ot al damages of

$10, 396, 944. 3

The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed CVS' s cal cul at i on and gr ant ed

t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o remand t he case t o Massachuset t s st at e

cour t . Romul us v. CVS Pharmacy, I nc. , No. 11- 11734- RWZ, 2012 WL

899577 ( D. Mass. Mar . 16, 2012) [ her ei naf t er Romul us I ] . The cour t

not ed t hat "[ t ] he di f f i cul t y wi t h def endant ' s cal cul at i on i s t hat

i t assumes al l shi f t super vi sor s l ost t hei r br eak each day of t hei r

empl oyment dur i ng the cl ass per i od whi l e t he compl ai nt cl ear l y

st at es t hat t he ci r cumst ances l eadi ng t o such l oss occur r ed

' somet i mes. ' " I d. at *1. "Because def endant ' s assumpt i ons ar e i n

no way r oot ed i n t he al l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt , def endant f ai l s

t o meet i t s bur den of pr ovi ng t he r equi si t e j ur i sdi ct i onal amount . "

3 I n i t s opposi t i on t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o r emand, CVSest i mat ed t hat al l Shi f t Super vi sor s, appr oxi mat el y 2583, wor ked516, 105 shi f t s of si x or mor e hour s dur i ng t he r el evant t i meper i od. Assumi ng t hat t he cl ass member s l ost each t hi r t y- mi nut e

meal br eak on al l of t hose shi f t s, CVS mul t i pl i ed t he number ofshi f t s by one hal f of t he aver age hour l y rat e, $13. 43, andcal cul at ed damages of $3, 465, 648. CVS t r ebl ed t hat amount t o r eacha t otal damages est i mate of $10, 396, 944. Even i f wage vi ol at i onsoccur r ed i n onl y 50 percent of t hese meal br eaks, t he damages t ot alwoul d exceed $5 mi l l i on. See Romul us v. CVS Pharmacy, I nc. , No.11- 11734- RWZ, 2012 WL 899577, at *1 ( D. Mass. Mar . 16, 2012) .

-5-


6/34

I d. The pr opr i et y of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i r st r emand or der i s

not bef ore us.

The par t i es conduct ed prel i mi nary di scover y upon t hei r

r et ur n t o st at e cour t . CVS pr ovi ded t he pl ai nt i f f s wi t h el ect r oni c

t i me and at t endance dat a rel at i ng to Massachuset t s Shi f t

Super vi sor s f r om August 2010 t hr ough J une 2012. Anal yzi ng t hi s

dat a, t he pl ai nt i f f s f ound 116, 499 meal br eaks dur i ng t hi s per i od

when no ot her Shi f t Supervi sor was worki ng. They i nf ormed CVS of

t hi s number , a ver y i mpor t ant component of t hi s damages

cal cul at i on, by emai l on J anuar y 18, 2013.

Wi t hi n t hi r t y days of r ecei pt of t hi s emai l , CVS f i l ed

i t s second not i ce of r emoval on Febr uary 15, 2013. CVS

ext r apol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' number of vi ol at i ons over t he ent i r e

cl ass per i od, and ar gued t hat t her e was " a reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y

t hat t he amount i n cont r oversy exceeds $5, 000, 000. " CVS argued

t hat t hi s second not i ce of r emoval was "t i mel y under 28 U. S. C.

1446( b) ( 3) because i t was f i l ed wi t hi n 30 days of t he dat e t hat

CVS ascer t ai ned t hat t hi s case became removabl e" based on t he emai l

pr ovi ded by t he pl ai nt i f f s.

On Mar ch 27, 2014, t he di st r i ct cour t agai n gr ant ed t he

pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o r emand, f i ndi ng t hat CVS' s not i ce of r emoval

was unt i mel y and concl udi ng on t he mer i t s t hat CVS had " f ai l ed t o

' show a reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat mor e than $5 mi l l i on i s at

st ake i n t hi s case. ' " Romul us I I , 2014 WL 1271767, at *3 & n. 3

-6-


7/34

( ci t i ng Amoche v. Guar . Tr ust Li f e I ns. Co. , 556 F. 3d 41, 50- 51

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) .

On t he quest i on of t i mel i ness, t he di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat CVS must r el y on Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) si nce " [ f ] ar

mor e than t hi r t y days have el apsed si nce ser vi ce of pl ai nt i f f s'

amended compl ai nt . " I d. at *2. Wi t hout t he gui dance of ci r cui t

pr ecedent , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he def endant had f ai l ed t o

i dent i f y any paper "pr ovi di ng i nf or mat i on f r om whi ch i t l at er

ascer t ai ned r emovabi l i t y f or the f i r st t i me. " I d. Even i f t he

J anuar y 18, 2013, emai l qual i f i ed as an "ot her paper " f or t he

pur poses of Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) , i t "provi de[ d] no ' new' i nf or mat i on

r egar di ng r emovabi l i t y that coul d not have been pr evi ousl y

ascer t ai ned by def endant i n l i ght of t he al l egat i ons i n t he amended

compl ai nt and i t s own knowl edge and i nf or mat i on. " I d. at *2- 3.

The di st r i ct cour t hi ghl i ght ed t hat t he est i mat e cont ai ned i n t he

J anuar y 18, 2013, emai l came f r omdat a t hat CVS had possessed f r om

t he begi nni ng of l i t i gat i on and had pr ovi ded t o t he pl ai nt i f f s.

I d. at *2. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat CVS had vi ol at ed a dut y

t o make a r easonabl e i nqui r y i nt o i t s own r ecords at t he t i me of

t he compl ai nt . I d. ( ci t i ng Sok v. U. S. Fi d. & Guar . Co. , No. 91-

12028, 1992 WL 97193, at *1 ( D. Mass. Apr . 27, 1992) ) .

On t he subst ant i ve quest i on of t he amount i n cont r over sy,

t he di st r i ct cour t not ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' obj ecti ons t o def endant ' s

cal cul at i ons of t he amount i n cont r over sy. I d. at *3 n. 3. The

-7-


8/34

di st r i ct cour t , wi t hout f ur t her expl anat i on, t hen st at ed t hat t he

"Pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument s on t hese poi nt s ar e per suasi ve, and I f i nd

t hat def endant , despi t e havi ng ' bet t er access t o t he r el evant

i nf or mat i on, ' has f ai l ed t o ' show a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat

mor e t han $5 mi l l i on i s at st ake i n t hi s case. ' " I d. ( quot i ng

Amoche, 556 F. 3d at 50- 51) .

CVS sought l eave t o appeal t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der on

an i nt er l ocut or y basi s under 28 U. S. C. 1453( c) ( 1) . Thi s cour t

asked t he di st r i ct cour t t o cl ar i f y "whet her , i n i t s vi ew, t he

r emoval was unt i mel y wi t h r espect t o a par t i cul ar 30- day per i od i n

1446( b) ; and i f so, whet her t he 30 days r an f r om a par t i cul ar

dat e. " The di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned i n r esponse:

The onl y possi bl y qual i f yi ng document [ under 1446( b) ( 3) ] [ def endant ] r ecei ved was t heJ anuar y 18, 2013, e- mai l . I deemed i ti nadequat e t o ser ve as an "ot her paper" becausei t was based ent i r el y on i nf or mat i on pr ovi dedby def endant . Because t he i nf ormat i on wasr eadi l y avai l abl e t o def endant f r om t he st ar t ,i t pr ovi ded no "new" i nf or mat i on r egar di ngr emovabi l i t y t hat woul d al l ow use of t he dat eof t he e- mai l as t he st ar t i ng dat e f ordet er mi ni ng t i mel i ness. Accor di ngl y, I deemedt he pr oper dat e f or cal cul at i ng t i mel i ness t obe t he date of t he r et ur n of servi ce, Sept ember8, 2011, whi ch necessari l y f ol l owed r ecei pt bydef endant of t he Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt .

Romul us v. CVS Phar macy, I nc. , No. 13- 10305- RWZ, 2014 WL 2435089,

at *1 ( D. Mass. May 30, 2014) [ her ei naf t er Romul us I I I ] .

-8-


9/34

Thi s Cour t grant ed t he pet i t i on f or r evi ew on Sept ember

8, 2014, and asked t he par t i es t o addr ess a ser i es of quest i ons. 4

The par t i es submi t t ed suppl emental br i ef i ng on t hese i ssues.

We now hol d t hat Sect i on 1446( b) ' s t hi r t y- day cl ocks ar e

t r i gger ed onl y when t he pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt or pl ai nt i f f s'

subsequent paper pr ovi des t he def endant wi t h suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on

t o easi l y det er mi ne t hat t he mat t er i s r emovabl e. The di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n i mposi ng t oo gr eat a dut y of i nqui r y on t he

def endant . I n t hi s case, t he pl ai nt i f f s' J anuar y 18, 2013, emai l

t r i gger ed Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) ' s t hi r t y- day deadl i ne by pr ovi di ng

suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on f r omwhi ch t o easi l y ascer t ai n t he amount i n

4 The Cour t posed t he f ol l owi ng quest i ons:

- - Accor di ng t o t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , "[ e] ver y ci r cui t t hat hasaddr essed t he quest i on of r emoval t i mi ng has appl i ed [ 28 U. S. C. ] 1446( b) l i t er al l y and adopt ed some f or m of a br i ght - l i ne r ul e

t hat l i mi t s t he cour t ' s i nqui r y t o t he cl ock- t r i gger i ng pl eadi ng orot her paper and, wi t h r espect t o t he j ur i sdi ct i onal amount i npar t i cul ar , r equi r es a speci f i c, unequi vocal st at ement f r om t hepl ai nt i f f r egar di ng t he damages sought . " Wal ker v. Trai l erTr ansi t , I nc. , 727 F. 3d 819, 824 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) . I s t hi s, orshoul d t hi s be, t he r ul e i n t hi s ci r cui t ?

- - Under t he r emoval st at ut e, what t i me- sensi t i ve dut y, i f any,does t he def endant have t o i nvest i gat e t he f act s i n r esponse topl ai nt i f f ' s al l egat i ons?

- - Assumi ng t hat nei t her 30- day per i od i n 1446( b) i s advanci ng,

does t he def endant have a deadl i ne f or comi ng f orward wi t h i t s owni nf or mat i on suppor t i ng removal ?

- - Agai n assumi ng t hat nei t her 30- day per i od i n 1446( b) i sadvanci ng, does any mechani sm i n t he r emoval st at ut e r egul ate asecond or successi ve r emoval t hat i s based on i nf or mat i on avai l abl et o the def endant at t he t i me of t he pr evi ous r emoval ?

-9-


10/34

cont r over sy f or t he f i r st t i me. The pl ai nt i f f s' emai l was not

di squal i f i ed f r om bei ng an "ot her paper " by t he f act t hat i t was

based on i nf ormat i on pr ovi ded by t he def endant . CVS' s second

not i ce of r emoval on Febr uary 15, 2013, was t her ef ore t i mel y.

I n addi t i on, we hol d t hat CVS car r i ed i t s subst ant i ve

bur den of demonst r at i ng a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat t he amount i n

cont r over sy exceeds $5 mi l l i on, as r equi r ed f or f eder al

j ur i sdi ct i on under CAFA. We do not , as a consequence, r each t he

di f f i cul t quest i ons r el at ed t o t he avai l abi l i t y and mechani cs of

r emoval out si de of t he t wo t hi r t y- day wi ndows i n Sect i on 1446( b) .

I I . Appel l at e J ust i ci abi l i t y

The pl ai nt i f f s mi st akenl y ar gue t hat t hi s i nt er l ocut or y

appeal i s unt i mel y, and t hat t hi s cour t l acks j ur i sdi ct i on over t he

appeal . Under CAFA, " [ i ] f t he cour t of appeal s accept s an appeal

under par agr aph ( 1) , t he cour t shal l compl et e al l act i on on such

appeal , i ncl udi ng r ender i ng j udgment , not l at er t han 60 days af t er

t he dat e on whi ch such appeal was f i l ed, unl ess an ext ensi on i s

gr ant ed under par agr aph ( 3) . " 28 U. S. C. 1453( c) ( 2) . The

pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat CVS f i l ed i t s appeal on Apr i l 7, 2014, and

t hat an appel l at e deci si on was due by May 30, 2014.

The Apr i l 7, 2014, f i l i ng was not an appeal , but a

pet i t i on f or per mi ssi on t o appeal . Under CAFA, t he appel l at e cour t

had di scr et i on t o gr ant CVS per mi ssi on t o appeal , and no appeal

-10-


11/34

exi st ed unt i l we di d so. See i d. As t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t has

per suasi vel y r easoned:

When a par t y f i l es a not i ce of appeal , t her ei s, at t hat ver y poi nt i n t i me, an appeal ,

al bei t one t hat may l at er be subj ect t odi smi ssal f or j ur i sdi cti onal or pr ocedur ali nsuf f i ci ency. Wher e, however , a par t y"appl i es" f or l eave t o appeal , or "seeksper mi ssi on" t o do so, t her e i s l ogi cal l y noappeal unt i l t he cour t vest ed wi t h t heaut hor i t y t o gr ant or deny l eave has done so.

Pat t er son v. Dean Mor r i s, L. L. P. , 444 F. 3d 365, 369 ( 5t h Ci r .

2006) .

The si xt y- day deadl i ne f or appel l at e consi derat i on begi ns

t o accrue f r om t he dat e on whi ch t he cour t of appeal s grant s

per mi ssi on t o appeal . Col l . of Dent al Sur geons of P. R. v. Conn.

Gen. Li f e I ns. Co. , 585 F. 3d 33, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . We gr ant ed

CVS permi ssi on t o appeal on Sept ember 8, 2014, and have 60 days

f r om t hat dat e to render j udgment , unl ess an ext ensi on i s grant ed.

See 28 U. S. C. 1453( c) ( 2) .

I I I . Anal ysi s

The di st r i ct cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i onal deter mi nat i on on

r emoval i s subj ect t o de novo r evi ew. Amoche, 556 F. 3d at 48.

I ssues of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on ar e al so subj ect t o de novo

r evi ew. Hannon v. Ci t y of Newt on, 744 F. 3d 759, 765 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) . "However , wher e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s assessment of a

j ur i sdi ct i onal i ssue t urns on f i ndi ngs of f act , we accept t hose

f i ndi ngs unl ess they ar e cl ear l y er r oneous. " Cooper v. Char t er

-11-


12/34

Commc' ns Ent m' t s I , LLC, 760 F. 3d 103, 106 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Fi ndi ngs of f act were not made here.

A. Ti mel i ness of Removal Under Sect i on 1446( b)

1. St at ut or y Ti me Li mi t s

Sect i on 1446( b) set s f or t h t wo t hi r t y- day wi ndows f or

r emoval based on pl eadi ngs, or ot her papers, pr ovi ded by t he

pl ai nt i f f . Fi r st , Sect i on 1446( b) ( 1) stat es:

( 1) The not i ce of r emoval of a ci vi l act i onor pr oceedi ng shal l be f i l ed wi t hi n 30 daysaf t er t he r ecei pt by t he def endant , t hr oughser vi ce or ot her wi se, of a copy of t he i ni t i alpl eadi ng set t i ng f or t h t he cl ai m f or r el i ef upon whi ch such act i on or pr oceedi ng i s based. . . .

28 U. S. C. 1446( b) ( 1) . Second, Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) st at es:

( 3) Except as pr ovi ded i n subsect i on ( c) , i ft he case st at ed by t he i ni t i al pl eadi ng i s notr emovabl e, a not i ce of r emoval may be f i l edwi t hi n 30 days af t er r ecei pt by t he def endant ,t hr ough servi ce or ot her wi se, of a copy of anamended pl eadi ng, mot i on, order or ot her paperf r om whi ch i t may f i r st be ascer t ai ned t hatt he case i s one whi ch i s or has becomer emovabl e.

I d. 1446( b) ( 3) . The di st r i ct cour t ' s f i r st r emand or der , i ssued

af t er CVS r emoved t he case wi t hi n t hi r t y days of t he i ni t i al

pl eadi ng, i s not bef or e us. The quest i on i s whet her CVS' s second

not i ce of r emoval was t i mel y under Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) .

The di st r i ct cour t i mpl i ci t l y hel d t hat t he Sect i on

1446( b) ( 1) cl ock runs i n ever y case f r om t he dat e of ser vi ce,

r egar dl ess of t he cont ent s of t he compl ai nt . See Romul us I I I , 2014

-12-


13/34

WL 2435089, at *1. Havi ng mi ssed t he f i r st t hi r t y- day per i od, t he

di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat CVS "must r el y on sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) t o

sust ai n i t s second at t empt t o r emove. " Romul us I I , 2014 WL

1271767, at *2. The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Sect i on

1446( b) ( 3) di d not appl y i n t hi s case si nce CVS had i dent i f i ed no

"ot her paper " t hat set f or t h "new i nf or mat i on suppor t i ng f eder al

j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s case. " I d. The di st r i ct cour t r easoned

t hat i nf ormat i on on damages i s not "new" i f t he def endant coul d

have di scover ed i t ear l i er t hr ough i t s own i nvest i gat i on. See i d.

Thi s i s not how t he st at ut e r eads and woul d produce a di f f i cul t - t o-

manage t est .

The pl ai nt i f f s do ar gue t hat t he t ext of t he st at ut e

suppor t s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r eadi ng of Sect i on 1446( b) . Fi r st ,

Sect i on 1446( b) ( 1) i ncl udes t he mandat or y l anguage that " [ t ] he

not i ce of r emoval of a ci vi l act i on or pr oceedi ng shal l be f i l ed

wi t hi n 30 days af t er t he r ecei pt by t he def endant , t hr ough servi ce

or ot her wi se, of a copy of t he i ni t i al pl eadi ng. " 28 U. S. C.

1446( b) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) . The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat Sect i on

1446( b) ( 1) , by i t s t er ms, r equi r es r emoval wi t hi n t hi r t y days of

servi ce i n ever y case, r egar dl ess of whet her t he compl ai nt

evi dences removabi l i t y or not . Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) t hen oper at es as

an except i on t o al l ow a def endant t o r emove out si de of t hi s i ni t i al

t hi r t y- day wi ndow i f t he def endant "f i r st . . . ascer t ai n[ s] " t hat

t he case i s r emovabl e f r om a subsequent paper . I d. 1446( b) ( 3) .

-13-


14/34

Accor di ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) cannot be i nvoked

i f t he def endant coul d have "ascer t ai ned, " - - t hr ough "some sor t of

i nvest i gat i ve act i on" by t he def endant - - t hat t he case was

r emovabl e at some poi nt pr i or t o t he r ecei pt of t he pl ai nt i f f s'

paper .

To t he cont r ar y, t he t ext of t he st at ut e f ocuses sol el y

on when t he pl ai nt i f f s' paper s r eveal r emovabi l i t y. 5 Sect i on

1446( b) ( 1) must be under st ood i n conj unct i on wi t h Sect i on

1446( b) ( 3) , whi ch appl i es i nst ead of Sect i on 1446( b) ( 1) "i f t he

case st at ed by t he i ni t i al pl eadi ng i s not r emovabl e. " 28 U. S. C.

1446( b) ( 3) ( emphasi s added) . The l anguage of Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3)

makes cl ear t hat r emovabi l i t y i n Sect i on 1446( b) ( 1) i s t o be j udged

by t he case as st ated on t he f ace of t he compl ai nt .

When r emovabi l i t y i s not cl ear f r omt he i ni t i al pl eadi ng,

Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) t hen l ooks t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' subsequent paper s.

Speci f i cal l y, Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) appl i es when t he def endant

r ecei ves "a copy of an amended pl eadi ng, mot i on, order or other

paper f r om whi ch i t may f i r st be ascer t ai ned t hat t he case i s one

whi ch i s or has become r emovabl e. " I d. ( emphases added) . Even i f

t he case was pr evi ousl y r emovabl e, Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) does not

5 Thi s case does not concer n, nor do we addr ess, a si t uat i onwher e t he t i me l i mi t i s t r i gger ed by an "or der " as cont empl at ed i nSect i on 1446( b) ( 3) . I t i s i nst ead l i mi t ed t o t hose cases i n whi cha pl ai nt i f f ' s pl eadi ng or some "ot her paper " f r omt he pl ai nt i f f i spr ovi ded to t he def endant .

-14-


15/34

appl y unt i l r emovabi l i t y can f i r st be ascer t ai ned f r om t he

pl ai nt i f f s' own paper s.

Based on t he t ext of t he st at ut e, we hol d t hat t he

def endant l ooks t o t he paper s pr ovi ded by t he pl ai nt i f f s t o

determi ne whether Sect i on 1446( b) ' s r emoval cl ocks have been

t r i gger ed. Ever y ci r cui t t o have addr essed t hi s i ssue has l i kewi se

"adopt ed some f or m of a br i ght - l i ne r ul e t hat l i mi t s t he cour t ' s

i nqui r y t o t he cl ock- t r i gger i ng pl eadi ng or ot her paper " i n or der

t o det er mi ne r emovabi l i t y. Wal ker v. Tr ai l er Tr ansi t , I nc. , 727

F. 3d 819, 824 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) ( col l ect i ng cases) ; see al so Cut r one

v. Mor t g. El ec. Regi st r at i on Sys. , I nc. , 749 F. 3d 137, 143- 45 ( 2d

Ci r . 2014) .

The br i ght - l i ne t est var i es i n sever i t y among t he

ci r cui t s. The Sevent h Ci r cui t , f or exampl e, has expl ai ned t hat

" t he quest i on i s whet her [ t he cl ock- t r i gger i ng pl eadi ng or ot her

paper ] , on i t s f ace or i n combi nat i on wi t h ear l i er - f i l ed pl eadi ngs,

pr ovi des speci f i c and unambi guous not i ce t hat t he case sat i sf i es

f eder al j ur i sdi ct i onal r equi r ement s and t her ef or e i s r emovabl e. "

Wal ker , 727 F. 3d at 825. The Sevent h Ci r cui t hi ghl i ght ed t hat t hi s

r ul e r equi r es t he pl ai nt i f f t o "speci f i cal l y di scl ose t he amount of

monet ary damages sought " i n order t o t r i gger Sect i on 1446( b) ' s

deadl i nes. I d. at 824. The Sevent h Ci r cui t , t hough, has not

addr essed whether Sect i on 1446( b) can be t r i gger ed by a si mpl e

cal cul at i on on t he par t of t he def endant f r om dat a reveal ed by t he

-15-


16/34

pl ai nt i f f ' s paper s i n t he absence of a speci f i c damages est i mat e

f r om t he pl ai nt i f f .

The Second Ci r cui t has al so l i mi t ed t he i nqui r y t o t he

cont ent s of t he compl ai nt or l at er paper , but has al l owed t he

pl ai nt i f f t o t r i gger t he r emoval deadl i nes ei t her by "expl i ci t l y

speci f [ yi ng] t he amount of monetary damages sought or [ by]

set [ t i ng] f or t h f act s f r omwhi ch an amount i n cont r over sy i n excess

of $5, 000, 000 can be ascer t ai ned. " Cut r one, 749 F. 3d at 145

( emphasi s added) . The Second Ci r cui t expl ai ned t hat , even under a

br i ght - l i ne r ul e, "def endant s must st i l l ' appl y a r easonabl e amount

of i nt el l i gence i n ascer t ai ni ng r emovabi l i t y. ' " I d. at 143

( quot i ng Whi t aker v. Am. Tel ecast i ng, I nc. , 261 F. 3d 196, 206 ( 2d

Ci r . 2001) ) . Al t hough def endant s must appl y a r easonabl e amount of

i nt el l i gence, t hey "have no i ndependent dut y t o i nvest i gat e whet her

a case i s r emovabl e. " I d.

Ci t i ng the same l anguage, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has s t at ed

t hat t he def endant must " ' appl y a r easonabl e amount of i nt el l i gence

i n ascer t ai ni ng r emovabi l i t y. ' " Kuxhausen v. BMW Fi n. Ser vs. NA

LLC, 707 F. 3d 1136, 1140 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Whi t aker , 261

F. 3d at 206) . For exampl e, " [ m] ul t i pl yi ng f i gur es cl ear l y st at ed

i n a compl ai nt i s an aspect of t hat dut y. " I d.

We agr ee wi t h t he Second Ci r cui t t hat a pl ai nt i f f ' s

pl eadi ng or l at er paper wi l l t r i gger t he deadl i nes i n Sect i on

1446( b) i f t he pl ai nt i f f ' s paper i ncl udes a cl ear st at ement of t he

-16-


17/34

damages sought or i f t he pl ai nt i f f ' s paper set s f or t h suf f i ci ent

f act s f r om whi ch t he amount i n cont r over sy can easi l y be

ascer t ai ned by t he def endant by si mpl e cal cul at i on. The def endant

has no dut y, however , t o i nvest i gat e or t o suppl y f act s out si de of

t hose pr ovi ded by t he pl ai nt i f f .

As a pol i cy mat t er , t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat a def endant

shoul d have a dut y t o i nvest i gat e r emoval ear l y i n l i t i gat i on i n

order t o avoi d gamesmanshi p and t o r esol ve r emoval as ef f i ci ent l y

as possi bl e. The pl ai nt i f f s expl ai n:

I f t here were no deadl i ne by whi ch a def endantmust di scl ose i nf or mat i on i n i t s possessi ont hat suppor t s r emoval , a def endant coul dst r at egi cal l y l i t i gat e a case i n st at e cour tunt i l i t coul d assess how i t was f ar i ng t her e,or deci de whet her t o remove based on i t sassessment of how much di sr upt i on a change off or um woul d cause t he pl ai nt i f f . I t woul dal so enabl e a def endant t o use del ay ( as CVSseems t o have t r i ed t o do here) as a weaponwi t h t he hope of exhaust i ng t he pl ai nt i f f ' spat i ence or r esour ces.

The pl ai nt i f f s not e t hat CVS' s second at t empt at r emoval was based

on dat a cal cul at ed f r om i nf or mat i on CVS possessed f r om t he

begi nni ng of t hi s l i t i gat i on, but t he second not i ce of r emoval was

not f i l ed unt i l sevent een mont hs af t er t he case was i ni t i al l y

br ought . I mposi ng an obl i gat i on on a def endant t o i nvest i gat e and

r emove ear l y and qui ckl y, t hey say, woul d ensur e t he ef f i ci ent

r esol ut i on of r emoval quest i ons. They ar gue, mor eover , t hat t hi s

bur den woul d not wei gh t oo heavi l y on a def endant si nce t he

-17-


18/34


19/34

act i on may be removabl e and t hi nk, f ur t her , t hat t he def endant

mi ght del ay f i l i ng a not i ce of r emoval unt i l a st r at egi cal l y

advant ageous moment , t hey need onl y pr ovi de t o t he def endant a

document f r om whi ch r emovabi l i t y may be ascer t ai ned. " I d. By

f i l i ng a compl ai nt or subsequent paper t hat meet s t he br i ght - l i ne

r ul e, t he pl ai nt i f f s wi l l t r i gger one of t he t hi r t y- day cl ocks i n

Sect i on 1446( b) , and wi l l f orce t he def endant t o r emove i mmedi atel y

or l ose t he oppor t uni t y t o do so l at er . I d.

We f ol l ow, as we must , t he Congr essi onal pol i cy choi ce

i nher ent i n t he st at ut or y t ext . As we have pr evi ousl y expl ai ned,

" t he obvi ous pur pose of st ar t i ng t he 30- day cl ock onl y af t er t he

def endant ' s r ecei pt of a ' paper ' r eveal i ng t he case' s r emovabi l i t y

i s t o ensur e t hat t he par t y seeki ng r emoval has not i ce t hat t he

case i s r emovabl e bef or e t he l i mi t at i ons per i od begi ns t o r un

agai nst i t . " Wobur n Fi ve Cent s Sav. Bank v. Rober t M. Hi cks, I nc. ,

930 F. 2d 965, 970 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . To det er mi ne whet her t he

Sect i on 1446( b) cl ocks have begun t o r un, t her ef ore, we f ocus

excl usi vel y on t he pl eadi ngs and ot her paper s pr ovi ded by t he

pl ai nt i f f s. The def endant must r emove wi t hi n t hi r t y days of a

paper , f i l ed by t he pl ai nt i f f s , t hat expl i ci t l y speci f i es the

amount of monet ary damages sought or set s f or t h f act s f r omwhi ch an

amount i n cont r over sy i n excess of $5 mi l l i on can be r eadi l y

ascer t ai ned. See Cut r one, 749 F. 3d at 145.

-19-


20/34

2. Pl ai nt i f f s ' Compl ai nt

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat CVS' s second not i ce of r emoval

i s l ate because t he amended compl ai nt shoul d have sat i sf i ed even a

br i ght - l i ne appr oach "si nce i t set f or t h a cl ear damages t heor y

whi ch CVS cl ear l y under st ood. " "To est abl i sh t he amount i n

cont r over sy, " accor di ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, "al l CVS had t o do was

det ermi ne how many t i mes Shi f t Super vi sor s t ook meal breaks when no

other Shi f t Super vi sor , Assi st ant Manager or Manager was pr esent ,

and mul t i pl y t he tot al t i me of such br eaks by t he Shi f t

Super vi sor s' aver age hour l y wage t o obt ai n a r el i abl e est i mat e of

t he amount of unpai d wages owed t o t he Cl ass. "

Essent i al f act s ar e mi ssi ng f r om t he compl ai nt . As t he

pl ai nt i f f s concede, CVS woul d have needed t o i nvest i gate and suppl y

t he number of meal breaks at i ssue and the aver age hour l y wage t o

have determi ned t he amount i n cont r oversy. The compl ai nt nei t her

st at es t he aggr egat e amount i n cont r over sy nor al l eges suf f i ci ent

i nf or mat i on f r om whi ch CVS coul d have easi l y ascer t ai ned

r emovabi l i t y.

3. "Ot her Paper ": Pl ai nt i f f s' Emai l

"[ I ] f t he case st at ed by t he i ni t i al pl eadi ng i s not

r emovabl e, a not i ce of r emoval may be f i l ed wi t hi n 30 days af t er

r ecei pt by t he def endant . . . of a copy of an amended pl eadi ng,

mot i on, or der or ot her paper f r omwhi ch i t may f i r st be ascer t ai ned

t hat t he case i s one whi ch i s or has become r emovabl e. " 28 U. S. C.

-20-


21/34

1446( b) ( 3) . 6 The di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat " [ t ] he onl y

possi bl y qual i f yi ng document " was an emai l sent t o CVS by

pl ai nt i f f s' counsel on J anuar y 18, 2013, whi ch est i mat ed the number

of meal br eaks wi t hout Shi f t Super vi sor cover age over an al most

t wo- year per i od. Romul us I I I , 2014 WL 2435089, at *1. The

di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t hi s emai l was " i nadequat e t o ser ve as an

' ot her paper ' because i t was based ent i r el y on i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded

by def endant . " I d.

The i nt er pret at i on of t he phr ase "ot her paper " i n Sect i on

1446( b) ( 3) i s anot her i ssue of f i r st i mpr essi on f or t hi s ci r cui t . 7

Ther e ar e cogent ar gument s f or bot h an expansi ve and l i mi t ed

const r uct i on of t hi s phr ase. Gi ven t he ambi gui t y pr esent i n t he

t ext , we r el y on t he cl ear congr essi onal i nt ent t o i nt er pr et "ot her

paper " br oadl y.

Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) l i st s t he document s t hat can t r i gger

t he second r emoval wi ndow: "a copy of an amended pl eadi ng, mot i on,

6 I n a non- CAFA case, t he avai l abi l i t y of t hi s avenue f orr emoval i s l i mi t ed t o one year , "unl ess t he di st r i ct cour t f i ndst hat t he pl ai nt i f f has act ed i n bad f ai t h i n or der t o pr event adef endant f r omr emovi ng t he act i on. " 28 U. S. C. 1446( c) ( 1) . Thi sone- year cap i s i r r el evant t o t he pr esent case si nce i t does notappl y t o t he r emoval of cl ass act i ons under CAFA. I d. 1453( b) .

7 Di st r i ct cour t s i n t hi s ci r cui t t hat have addr essed t hi s

i ssue have come t o opposi t e concl usi ons as t o how narr owl y t oconst r ue t he phr ase. Compar e Mi l l - Ber n Assocs. , I nc. v. Dal l .Semi conduct or Corp. , 69 F. Supp. 2d 240 ( D. Mass. 1999)( i nt er pr et i ng nar r owl y) , and Bor gese v. Am. Lung Ass' n of Me. , No.05- 88, 2005 WL 2647916 (D. Me. Oct . 17, 2005) ( same) , wi t h Parkerv. Cnt y. of Oxf or d, 224 F. Supp. 2d 292 ( D. Me. 2002) ( i nt er pr et i ngbr oadl y) .

-21-


22/34

or der or ot her paper . " 28 U. S. C. 1446( b) ( 3) . The doct r i ne of

ej usdemgener i s woul d suggest t hat t he t er m" ot her paper " shoul d be

l i mi t ed t o document s si mi l ar t o a pl eadi ng, mot i on, or or der . See

Ci r cui t Ci t y St or es, I nc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 114- 15 ( 2001)

( " [ T] he gener al wor ds ar e const r ued t o embr ace onl y obj ect s s i mi l ar

i n nat ur e to those obj ect s enumer at ed by t he pr ecedi ng speci f i c

wor ds. " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Rel yi ng on t hi s canon of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on, t he di st r i ct

cour t i n Mi l l - Ber n Associ at es, I nc. , concl uded t hat "ot her paper "

must be l i mi t ed t o document s t hat ar e " f or mal l y f i l ed and/ or ser ved

on t he par t i es, " l i ke a f i l ed af f i davi t . 69 F. Supp. 2d at 243.

Anot her par t of t he st at ut e coul d suppor t a br oader

t ext ual i nt er pr et at i on. Speci f i cal l y, Secti on 1446( c)( 3) ( A)

states:

I f t he case st at ed by t he i ni t i al pl eadi ng i snot r emovabl e sol el y because t he amount i ncont r over sy does not exceed the amountspeci f i ed i n sect i on 1332( a) , i nf or mat i onr el at i ng t o t he amount i n cont r over sy i n t her ecor d of t he St at e pr oceedi ng, or i nr esponses t o di scover y, shal l be t r eat ed as an"ot her paper " under subsect i on (b) ( 3) .

28 U. S. C. 1446( c) ( 3) ( A) ( emphasi s added) . I t i s never t hel ess

uncl ear , f r om t he t ext al one, whet her t hi s pr ovi si on appl i es t o

CAFA cases. On t he one hand, Congr ess chose t o speci f i cal l y

ment i on onl y non- CAFA cases, r emoved under di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on

pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1332( a) , when st at ut or i l y br oadeni ng t he

scope of t he t er m "ot her paper . " On t he other hand, Congr ess

-22-


23/34

dr af t ed CAFA t o i ncor por at e al l of Sect i on 1446, except f or t he

one- year l i mi t at i on on r emoval under Sect i on 1446( c) ( 1) . See i d.

1453( b) . Moreover , t her e i s a gener al pr esumpt i on t hat " t he same

t ermhas t he same meani ng when i t occur s her e and t here i n a si ngl e

st at ut e. " Envt l . Def . v. Duke Ener gy Cor p. , 549 U. S. 561, 574

( 2007) .

I n gener al , "[ t ] he f eder al cour t s have gi ven t he

r ef er ence t o ' ot her paper ' an expansi ve const r uct i on and have

i ncl uded a wi de arr ay of document s wi t hi n i t s scope. " 14C Wr i ght

& Mi l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce and Pr ocedur e 3731 ( 4t h ed. ) . As

such,

[ V] ar i ous di scover y document s such asdeposi t i on t r anscr i pt s , answer s t oi nt er r ogat or i es and r equest s f or admi ssi ons,as wel l as amendment s t o ad damnum cl auses ofcompl ai nt s, and cor r espondence bet ween t hepar t i es and t hei r at t or neys or bet ween t heat t or neys usual l y ar e accept ed as "ot herpaper s, " r ecei pt of whi ch can i ni t i at e a 30-day per i od of r emovabi l i t y.

I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Two cour t s of appeal s have hel d t hat i nf or mal

cor r espondence f r om t he pl ai nt i f f t o the def endant const i t ut ed an

"ot her paper " under Sect i on 1446( b) . I n Addo v. Gl obe Li f e &

Acci dent I nsur ance Co. , t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t hel d t hat a post -

compl ai nt demand l et t er , whi ch of f er ed t o set t l e f or above t he

amount i n cont r over sy, t r i gger ed Sect i on 1446( b) as an "other

paper . " 230 F. 3d 759, 761- 62 ( 5t h Ci r . 2000) . Li kewi se, t he Ni nt h

-23-


24/34

Ci r cui t hel d t hat a l et t er f r omt he pl ai nt i f f s, sent i n pr epar at i on

f or medi at i on, whi ch est i mat ed damages t o exceed $5 mi l l i on "put

[ t he def endant ] on not i ce as t o t he amount i n cont r over sy. " Babasa

v. LensCr af t er s, I nc. , 498 F. 3d 972, 975 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) . The

l et t er qual i f i ed as an "ot her paper , " and necessi t at ed r emoval

wi t hi n t hi r t y days. See i d.

The Senat e Repor t accompanyi ng t he passage of CAFA

suppor t s t he br oad i nt er pr et at i on of t he phr ase "ot her paper " and

r esol ves f or us any uncer t ai nt y ar i si ng f r om t he t ext of t he

st at ut e. The Commi t t ee on t he J udi ci ar y expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat i t

" f avor [ ed] t he br oad i nt er pr et at i on of ' ot her paper ' adopt ed by

some cour t s t o i ncl ude deposi t i on t r anscr i pt s, di scover y r esponses,

set t l ement of f er s and other document s or occur r ences t hat r eveal

t he r emovabi l i t y of a case. " S. Rep. No. 109- 14, at 9 ( 2005) ,

r epr i nt ed i n 2005 U. S. C. C. A. N. 3, 10. On bal ance, t hi s cl ear

congr essi onal i nt ent out wei ghs t he usual appl i cat i on of ej usdem

gener i s and r esol ves t he l ack of cl ar i t y i n Sect i on 1446( c) ( 3) ( A) .

We hol d t hat cor r espondence f r om t he pl ai nt i f f t o t he

def endant concerni ng damages can const i t ut e an "ot her paper" f or

pur poses of Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) . Under Sect i on 1446( b) ( 3) , t he

cor r espondence t r i gger s t he t hi r t y- day cl ock i f i t i s t he f i r st

document i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f put s t he def endant on not i ce t hat

t he cr i t er i a f or r emoval ar e met .

-24-


25/34

I n t hi s case, CVS had pr ovi ded t he pl ai nt i f f s wi t h t i me

punch dat a f or Shi f t Super vi sor s i n t he cour se of set t l ement

negot i at i ons. By anal yzi ng t he dat a, exper t s f r om bot h si des wer e

abl e t o est i mat e t he number of meal br eaks dur i ng whi ch a Shi f t

Super vi sor was wor ki ng wi t hout anot her Shi f t Super vi sor . I n a

t el ephone conver sat i on, bot h par t i es or al l y exchanged thei r

cal cul at i ons. CVS asked t he pl ai nt i f f s to pr ovi de t hei r est i mat e

i n wr i t t en f or m, whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s di d by emai l on t he same day.

The emai l est i mat ed 116, 499 meal breaks wi t hout Shi f t Supervi sor

cover age f r om August 2010 t hrough J une 2012.

I n t heor y, one more bi t of i nf or mat i on woul d be hel pf ul

f or preci si on. Two ot her t ypes of manager i al empl oyees, St or e

Managers and Ass i st ant Store Managers, coul d be worki ng dur i ng some

por t i on of t hese meal br eaks wi t hout Shi f t Super vi sor cover age.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hei r est i mat e i n t he J anuar y 18, 2013,

emai l "coul d not by i t sel f est abl i sh cl ass damages because i t di d

not account f or whether Managers or Ass i st ant Managers were pr esent

dur i ng t hose br eaks, whi ch woul d have al l owed the Shi f t Super vi sors

t o l eave t he pr emi ses and t hus not r esul t i n a wage l aw vi ol at i on. "

The pl ai nt i f f s st at e t hat t hey had not "communi cat ed t o CVS ' t he

pr eci se number of pot ent i al wage and hour vi ol at i ons f or whi ch t hey

seek r edr ess' because t hey st i l l l acked t he i nf or mat i on r egar di ng

Managers and Assi st ant Managers needed t o make such a cal cul at i on. "

-25-


26/34

Whether dat a even exi st s on t he pr esence of St ore

Managers and Ass i st ant Store Managers, t o r educe any damages

est i mat e, has been of const ant di sput e i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. Goi ng

back t o at l east t he f i r st r emand pr oceedi ng, t he pl ai nt i f f s have

asser t ed i n t hei r di st r i ct cour t f i l i ngs t hat CVS has a st at ut or y

obl i gat i on t o mai nt ai n r ecor ds of t he t i me act ual l y wor ked by al l

i t s empl oyees, i ncl udi ng Manager s and Assi st ant Manager s, and t hat

CVS "cannot hi de behi nd t he f act t hat i t f ai l ed t o do so. " The

f ai r i mpl i cat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f s ' posi t i on i s that CVS wi l l

ul t i mat el y be l i abl e f or br eaks f or whi ch such manager i al cover age

cannot be r el i abl y est abl i shed. To us, t hat aspect of pl ai nt i f f s'

own t heor y i s subst ant i al enough t o pl ace al l br eaks wi t hout Shi f t

Super vi sor cover age i n cont r over sy. 8 The pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi ded CVS

wi t h t hi s number i n t he emai l on J anuary 18, 2013.

Wi t h t he est i mat e i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' emai l , CVS had al l

of t he i nf or mat i on necessary t o r eadi l y ascer t ai n t he mat t er ' s

8 We note i n addi t i on t hat CVS has admi t t ed t hat t hi sput at i ve "evi dence" of manager i al cover age, whi ch assi st s i t i nr educi ng the scope of pot ent i al damages, i s ei t her non- exi st ent orunr el i abl e. At or al ar gument , CVS st at ed, "we don' t have t he dat at hat [ ] woul d pr ove or di spr ove t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m" on t hi spoi nt . Accor di ng t o CVS, no dai l y t i me r ecor ds exi st f or t heseexempt empl oyees. CVS admi t t ed t hat t he evi dence t hat does exi st

- - anecdot al evi dence and wr i t t en schedul es subj ect t o change - - i snot r el i abl e. CVS acknowl edged t hat i f t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e cor r ectt hat CVS shoul d have mai nt ai ned dai l y t i me recor ds f or exemptmanager s, "no reduct i on [ i n the number of br eaks] was or i swar r ant ed. " CVS may not swi t ch i t s posi t i on on t hi s i ssue l at er .I t i s bound by i t s j udi ci al admi ssi on. Cf . Li ma v. Hol der , 758F. 3d 72, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-26-


27/34

r emovabi l i t y f r om t he pl ai nt i f f s' own paper s. As t he pl ai nt i f f s

had t hemsel ves sai d, al l CVS had t o do t o det ermi ne an est i mat e of

damages was mul t i pl y t he est i mat e of t he number of meal breaks at

i ssue by t he aver age hour l y wage. The r ecor d f r om t he f i r st

r emoval pr oceedi ng i ncl uded t he uncont est ed average hour l y wage,

$13. 43. 9 Wi t h t he emai l , t he pl ai nt i f f s then pr ovi ded t he number

of br eaks at i ssue. CVS was abl e easi l y t o cal cul at e a t ot al of

$5, 611, 893 damages at i ssue. 10

9

Al t hough t he aver age hour l y wage was or i gi nal l y pr ovi ded byCVS based on an i nvest i gat i on of i t s own dat a, t hat uncont est edf act became par t of t he r ecor d i n t he f i r st r emoval at t empt . CVSwas under no dut y t o pr ovi de t hi s f i gur e or i gi nal l y, but coul d notsubsequent l y i gnor e i t . Ut i l i zi ng t he uncont est ed aver age hour l ywage i n t he record was part of CVS' s dut y t o appl y reasonabl ei nt el l i gence when ascer t ai ni ng r emovabi l i t y.

10 Accordi ng t o CVS,

Pl ai nt i f f s' r evi ew of t he Ti me & At t endanceDat a r eveal ed a tot al of 116, 499 pot ent i al

i nst ances i n whi ch a vi ol at i on occur r ed dur i ngt he per i od August 2010 thr ough J une 2012.Thi s equat es t o 5, 065 al l eged vi ol at i ons permont h. Ext r apol at i ng t hi s aver age over t hecl ass per i od of f i f t y- f i ve ( 55) mont hs ( t hr eeyears pr i or t o t he date t he Compl ai nt wasf i l ed thr ough Mar ch 31, 2013) yi el ds 278, 575al l eged vi ol at i ons. Thus, usi ng pl ai nt i f f s 'est i mat e of t he number of al l eged vi ol at i onsand an average hour l y wage f or Shi f tSuper vi sor s i n Massachuset t s, t he pot ent i aldamages exceed $5, 000, 000 as f ol l ows:

278,575 unpaid meal periods x $13.43/hr

(average hourly rate) x 0.5 hours (30 minute

meal period) = $1,870,631.

Taki ng i nt o account t r ebl e damages mandat ed byt he Wage Act , pl ai nt i f f s' al l eged damages are

-27-


28/34

The di st r i ct cour t obser ved t hat t he i nf or mat i on

cont ai ned i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' emai l was based on CVS' s own dat a and

t hat CVS coul d have per f ormed i t s own anal ysi s t o reach t he same

est i mat e ear l i er i n l i t i gat i on. 11 See Romul us I I , 2014 WL 1271767,

at *2. But i t er r ed i n concl udi ng t hat t hi s f act made CVS' s second

not i ce of r emoval unt i mel y. The t i mel i ness i nqui r y i s l i mi t ed t o

t he i nf or mat i on i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' paper s, r egar dl ess of whet her

i t s or i gi nal sour ce i s t he def endant . The def endant has no dut y t o

per f or m si gni f i cant i nvest i gat i on of i t s own dat a t o ascer t ai n

r emovabi l i t y. The t est i s not whet her t he i nf or mat i on i s "new, "

but when t he pl ai nt i f f s' paper s "f i r st " enabl e t he def endant t o

make t he r equi si t e mer i t s showi ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t . See 28

U. S. C. 1446( b) ( 3) .

The emai l qual i f i es as an "ot her paper f r omwhi ch i t may

f i r st be ascer t ai ned t hat t he case i s one whi ch

i s . . . r emovabl e, " and r equi r ed t he def endant t o r emove wi t hi n

at l east $5, 611, 893 ( $1, 870, 631 x 3 =$5, 611, 893) .

11 The di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat CVS " ' had a dut y t o make ar easonabl e i nqui r y r egar di ng the amount i n cont r over sy at t he t i met he sui t was f i l ed, ' . . . part i cul ar l y where i t , not pl ai nt i f f s ,possessed t he r ecor ds and dat a necessary t o make t he rel evant

cal cul at i ons. " Romul us I I , 2014 WL 1271767, at *2 ( ci t at i onomi t t ed) . I t i s t r ue, but i r r el evant f or pr esent pur poses, t hatpl ai nt i f f s of t en do not possess t he i nf or mat i on f r om whi ch t o makea damages est i mat e at t he begi nni ng of l i t i gat i on. Never t hel ess,Congr ess chose to i mpose the st r i ct t i me l i mi t s of Sect i on 1446( b)onl y once t he pl ai nt i f f put t he def endant on not i ce of t he mat t er ' sr emovabi l i t y.

-28-


29/34

t hi r t y days. I d. CVS' s second not i ce of r emoval , f i l ed wi t hi n

t hi r t y days of t he emai l , was t i mel y. 12

B. The Substant i ve Removal Quest i on: Amount - i n- Cont roversyUnder Sect i on 1332

Al t hough CVS' s not i ce of r emoval was t i mel y, i t st i l l

must show t hat t he CAFA j ur i sdi ct i onal pr er equi si t es f or f eder al

j ur i sdi ct i on ar e met . The onl y el ement at i ssue i n t hi s r emoval i s

whet her " t he mat t er i n cont r over sy exceeds t he sum or val ue of

$5, 000, 000, excl usi ve of i nt er est and cost s. " 28 U. S. C.

1332( d) ( 2) . As we have st r essed, " t he per t i nent quest i on i s what

i s i n cont r over sy i n t he case, not how much t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e

ul t i mat el y l i kel y t o r ecover . " Amoche, 556 F. 3d at 51.

The r emovi ng def endant bear s t he bur den of est abl i shi ng

f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on under CAFA. I d. at 48. We have pr evi ousl y

12 Al t hough CVS or i gi nal l y argued f or r emoval based on Sect i on1446( b) ( 3) , i t now ur ges us t o hol d t hat i t coul d r emove at anyt i me based on i t s own i nvest i gat i on i f nei t her t i me l i mi t i nSect i on 1446( b) appl i ed. Thr ee ci r cui t s have agr eed t hat adef endant can r emove on t he basi s of i t s own i nvest i gat i on i fnei t her of t he st at ut or y gr ant s f or r emoval i n Sect i on 1446( b) havebeen t r i gger ed and t r ansgr essed. See, e. g. , Cut r one, 749 F. 3d at

146- 48; Wal ker , 727 F. 3d at 825- 26; Rot h, 720 F. 3d at 1125- 26. Wedo not addr ess t he compl i cat ed quest i ons concer ni ng the possi bi l i t yof r emoval out si de of t he speci f i ed CAFA st at ut or y pr ocedur es.Whet her CVS coul d have i ndependent l y r emoved, pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1441, based on an i nvest i gat i on of i t s own dat a i s i r r el evantsi nce i t was r equi r ed t o r emove wi t hi n t hi r t y days of t hepl ai nt i f f s' emai l on J anuar y 18, 2013.

-29-


30/34

hel d that a def endant "must show a reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat more

t han $5 mi l l i on i s at st ake i n t hi s case. " I d. at 50. 13

CVS' s second not i ce of r emoval cal cul ated t he amount i n

cont r over sy t o be at l east $5, 611, 893. 14 I n doi ng so, CVS was

mer el y meet i ng i t s obl i gat i on t o appl y a " r easonabl e amount of

i nt el l i gence" t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' paper s. See Cut r one, 749 F. 3d at

145.

CVS updated i t s damages est i mate i n i t s opposi t i on t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o r emand. I n t he pl ai nt i f f s' f avor , CVS

di scounted t he number of meal breaks when t her e was no ot her Shi f t

Super vi sor worki ng by 15 per cent i n an at t empt t o est i mate t he

number of meal breaks at whi ch no manager i al empl oyees were

13 We easi l y di spose of CVS' s i l l - f ounded ar gument t hat t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on, usi ng t he r easonabl e pr obabi l i t yl anguage f r om Amoche, "ar t i cul at ed t he wr ong st andar d. " CVSasser t s t hat t he cour t must appl y a pr eponderance st andard based on

28 U. S. C. 1446( c) ( 2) ( B) , enact ed as par t of t he Feder al Cour t sJ ur i sdi ct i on and Venue Cl ar i f i cat i on Act of 2011 ( " J VCA") . CVSl ost t hat bat t l e bef or e i t f i l ed i t s br i ef . I n Amoche, weexpr essl y not ed t hat "t he r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y st andar d i s, t oour mi nds, f or al l pr act i cal pur poses i dent i cal t o t hepr eponder ance st andar d adopt ed by sever al ci r cui t s. " 556 F. 3d at50 ( ci t i ng Mer i di an Sec. I ns. Co. v. Sadowski , 441 F. 3d 536, 543( 7t h Ci r . 2006) ) . We expr ess no vi ew on t he appl i cabi l i t y ofSect i on 1446( c) ( 2) t o CAFA cases si nce t he st andards,not wi t hst andi ng nomencl at ur e, ar e i dent i cal .

14 CVS ext r apol ated t he number of br eaks wi t hout Shi f t

Super vi sor cover age over a cl ass per i od of f i f t y- f i ve mont hs,measur ed f r om "t hr ee years pr i or t o t he date t he Compl ai nt wasf i l ed t hr ough Mar ch 31, 2013. " Mul t i pl yi ng t hi s number of unpai dmeal br eaks ( 278, 575) by one- hal f of t he average hour l y rate( $13. 43) t ot al ed $1, 870, 631. Wi t h t r ebl e damages as mandat ed byt he Wage Act , "pl ai nt i f f s' al l eged damages are at l east$5, 611, 893. "

-30-


31/34

pr esent . Then, CVS ext ended t he cl ass per i od, updated t he aver age

hour l y wage, i ncl uded Over t i me/ Pr emi um r at es, and added a

r easonabl e est i mat e of at t or neys' f ees. 15 CVS provi ded t he

i nf or mat i on f or i t s cal cul at i ons, as set f or t h i n Appendi x A,

showi ng damages of $6, 291, 285.

The pl ai nt i f f s r ai sed obj ect i ons t o CVS' s r evi sed

cal cul at i on. Fi r st , t he pl ai nt i f f s t ake i ssue wi t h CVS' s "cher r y-

pi cked 15% assumpt i on. " 16 Second, t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat CVS

shoul d have cal cul ated the amount i n cont r over sy t hr ough the t i me

of r emoval . Thi r d, t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat "CVS' s ent i r e

cal cul at i on i s premi sed on the assumpt i on that t he unl awf ul

pol i ci es i dent i f i ed i n t he Compl ai nt cont i nue t o t hi s day. "

Four t h, t he pl ai nt i f f s obj ect t hat t he est i mat e f or at t or neys' f ees

i s "ent i r el y specul at i ve. "

The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he "Pl ai nt i f f s'

ar gument s on t hese poi nt s ar e per suasi ve, and I f i nd t hat

15 We have hel d t hat at t orneys' f ees are gener al l y notconsi dered when cal cul at i ng t he amount i n cont r oversy except wherepr ovi ded by cont r act or expl i ci t l y al l owed by st at ut e. SeeSpi el man v. Genzyme Corp. , 251 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Her e,t he amount i s pr oper l y i ncl uded because Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, 1B expl i ci t l y per mi t s t he r ecover y of at t or neys' f ees, and t hepar t i es do not di sput e t he poi nt .

16 For t hi s f i gur e, CVS r el i es on pl ai nt i f f Rober t Bour assa' st est i mony t hat t he st ore manager was pr esent dur i ng onl y 12 t o 15%of hi s br eaks. The pl ai nt i f f s not e t hat pl ai nt i f f Cassandr a Beal epr ovi ded a cont r ar y est i mat e. Speci f i cal l y, Ms. Beal e est i mat edt hat she was r equi r ed t o be i n t he st or e f or 60 t o 70% of herbreaks, meani ng t hat t he st or e manager must have been presentdur i ng t he r emai ni ng 30 t o 40% of her br eaks.

-31-


32/34

def endant , despi t e havi ng ' bet t er access t o t he rel evant

i nf or mat i on, ' has f ai l ed t o ' show a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat

mor e t han $5 mi l l i on i s at st ake i n t hi s case. ' " Romul us I I , 2014

WL 1271767, at *3 n. 3 ( quot i ng Amoche, 556 F. 3d at 50- 51) . But , i t

made no f actual f i ndi ngs and pr ovi ded no other expl anat i on.

We do not bel i eve t hat r emand f or a f ur t her expl anat i on

of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s succi nct r easons f or r ej ecti ng CVS' s f i gur e

i s appr opr i at e. The di st r i ct cour t made no f act ual f i ndi ngs and so

no def er ence i s owed. As we sai d i n Amoche, " [ m] erel y l abel i ng t he

def endant ' s showi ng as ' specul at i ve' wi t hout di scredi t i ng t he f act s

upon whi ch i t r est s i s i nsuf f i ci ent . " 556 F. 3d at 51.

Whet her our r evi ew i s de novo or f or cl ear er r or , we hol d

t hat t he evi dence demonst r at es a reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat t he

amount i n cont r oversy exceeds $5 mi l l i on even when account i ng f or

t he pl ai nt i f f s' obj ect i ons. As we have hel d, al l br eaks wi t hout

Shi f t Super vi sor cover age ar e at i ssue i n l i ght of t he ongoi ng

di sput e over t he pr esence of Manager s or Assi st ant Manager s.

Wi t hout t he di scount , t he pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument s f ai l t o r educe t he

amount at i ssue t o l ess t han $5 mi l l i on even i f t he t i me f r ame i s

l i mi t ed and i f t he at t or neys' f ees ar e omi t t ed. Mul t i pl yi ng t he

number of br eaks wi t hout Shi f t Supervi sor cover age per mont h ( 5065)

by the number of mont hs bet ween J ul y 25, 2008 and t he second not i ce

of r emoval ( appr oxi mat el y f i f t y- f our ) by hal f of t he updat ed

aver age hour l y wage ( $13. 53/ 2) by t hr ee f or t r ebl e damages r esul t s

-32-


33/34

i n a damages est i mat e of $5, 550, 885. 45. That i s enough t o show a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat mor e t han $5 mi l l i on i s at i ssue i n

t hi s case.

I V. Concl usi on

I n Amoche, we st r essed t hat we wi shed t o avoi d "ext ensi ve

and t i me consumi ng l i t i gat i on over t he quest i on of t he amount i n

cont r over sy i n CAFA r emoval cases, " and t hat consi der at i on of

pr el i mi nar y i ssues of r emoval "shoul d not devol ve i nt o a mi ni - t r i al

r egardi ng t he amount i n cont r oversy. " Amoche, 556 F. 3d at 50. Our

hol di ngs f ur t her havi ng cl ear and ef f i ci ent r ul es t o gover n t he

pr ocess of CAFA r emoval s, and, above al l , ar e i n keepi ng wi t h t he

Congr essi onal i nt ent i n CAFA t hat t he f eder al cour t s be avai l abl e

f or ums t o hear si gni f i cant cl ass act i ons. See i d. at 47- 48. Thi s

case i s now i n f eder al cour t t o st ay, and t he r emand or der i s

r ever sed.

So order ed.

-33-


34/34

Appendi x A:

CVS' s Damage Cal cul at i ons Through J ul y 23, 2013

Tot al Number of Vi ol at i onswi t hout Shi f t Super vi sorCoverage f r om Emai l

116, 499

15% Reduct i on t o Account f orMeal Br eaks Wher e a St or eManager or Assi st ant St or eManager was Pr esent

99, 024

Number of Mont hs i n Sampl e( August 2010 - J une 2012)

23

Number of Vi ol at i ons Per Mont h

i n Sampl e ( 99, 024vi ol at i ons/ 23 mont hs)

4305. 4

Number of Mont hs i n Cl assPer i od ( J ul y 25, 2008 - J ul y23, 2013)

59

Number of Vi ol at i ons i n Cl assPer i od ( 4305. 4 vi ol at i ons permont h x 59 mont hs)

254, 018

Updat ed Aver age Hour l y Wage $13. 53

Pot ent i al Exposur e at St r ai ghtTi me ( 0. 5 x Avg. Wage xVi ol at i ons)

$1, 718, 432

Pot ent i al Exposur eI ncor por at i ng OT/ Pr emi um Rat es

$1, 906, 428

Tr ebl e Damages $5, 719, 285

Est i mated At t orneys Fees ( 10%of Pot ent i al Recover y)

$572, 000

Tot al Amount i n Cont r oversy $6, 291, 285

34

Documents

Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)