GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, Jr., District Judge.
The plaintiff, Donald Sullivan, brought this putative class action against the defendants, Gallery Automotive Group, LLC and Yusuke Miki, in Plymouth County Superior Court. The defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. The plaintiff now moves to remand, contending that the case does not satisfy the amount-incontroversy requirement for this Court to exercise diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under § 1332(a).
According to the plaintiff's allegations, Gallery Automotive Group operates multiple car dealerships in Massachusetts. Yusuke Miki is a manager at the company. In December 2014, the plaintiff was hired as a car salesperson compensated by draw pay and commissions. While a salesperson, he "worked more than 40 hours in multiple workweeks," including "more than 45 hours . . . in some workweeks." (Notice of Removal, Ex. A ¶¶ 11-12 (dkt. no. 1-1).) "At no time" was he compensated at a rate of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked over forty per week. (
In April 2016, the plaintiff was promoted to the position of financial services manager responsible for selling automobile financial products to customers. He continued to be compensated by draw pay and commissions. While a manager, he worked "more than 40 hours in multiple workweeks," including "more than 60 hours . . . in some workweeks." (
In October 2016, the plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging class claims of non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, §§ 1A, 1B (Count I), non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §§ 148, 150 (Count II), and failure to maintain proper payroll records in violation of various state laws and regulations (Count III), as well as separate claims by Sullivan as an individual for non-payment of wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §§ 148, 150 (Count IV), breach of contract (Count V), and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit (Count VI). The complaint does not include a claim for a specific amount of damages.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under state law "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). "The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case."
It is undisputed in this case that the parties are of diverse citizenship. The sole issue is whether the $75,000 amount in controversy has been met.
In support of their claim that there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff's damages exceed $75,000, the defendants assert that the plaintiff's unpaid overtime claims alone would exceed the threshold when trebled pursuant to state law, that the plaintiff's commission allegations are merely examples of all potential claims for commissions so that the total of all such claims would be higher than the amount stated, and that the attorneys' fees likely to be incurred through the duration of the litigation would push the total damages beyond the jurisdictional amount. On examination, these contentions appear to be are based largely on unsupported speculations.
First, in order to assign a dollar figure to the plaintiff's unspecified overtime claims, the defendants assume that the plaintiff worked an average of 12.53 hours of overtime per week for his eighty-eight
Second, the defendants' contention that the plaintiff's two specific allegations regarding unpaid commissions are mere examples of other potential—but unspecified—commissions rests on a contorted reading of the complaint. In paragraph 27 of his complaint, the plaintiff describes the commission structure for his compensation plan, illustrating "[f]or example" how his commission would be derived in two situations depending on profit and number of products sold per customer. (Notice of Removal, Ex. A ¶ 27.) The defendants borrow the term "example" from paragraph 27 and apply it to subsequent paragraphs which allege unpaid commissions in the amount of $8,015.50 and $694.77 in order to argue that they understand the two claims to be "examples of unpaid commissions." (Defs.' Opp'n Mem. 7 (emphasis in original).) However, there is no indication in the complaint that there are other instances of unpaid commissions for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in his papers says he does not claim any. Without more, the defendants' contention regarding an amount of unpaid commissions is merely speculative.
Third, although a potential award of attorneys' fees may properly be considered in determining the amount in controversy when, as here, they are provided for by statute,
Federal courts have a particular responsibility to "police the border" of their jurisdiction,
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's Motion to Remand (dkt. no. 12) is GRANTED as to an order of remand. Although the plaintiff's motion is meritorious, I do not find that there was no objective basis for the defendants to remove the case,
It is SO ORDERED.