Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions (22nd Edition) 99 In Christmas v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,599 the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed Coleman: “for the purposes of the local controversy exception ‘the district court is to look to the complaint rather than to extrinsic evidence.’” Christmas held that “[t]o determine if the Plaintiffs claim ‘significant relief’ from a defendant, ‘we look to the remedies requested by the Plaintiffs.’”600 Christmas found that the local controversy exception applied even though the local defendants were individuals, rather than a corporate entity.601 2. Home State Exception Under the home state exception, a federal court must decline jurisdiction where: (1) 2/3 or more of the proposed class members are citizens of the forum state and (2) the primary defendants are citizens of the forum state.602 Unlike the local controversy exception, this exception does not require the court to consider other lawsuits. The party moving to remand the class action to state court must prove that the home state exception applies.603 E. Waiver A defendant may be considered to have waived the right to remove to federal court when, after it is apparent that the case is removable, it takes actions in state court that manifest an intent to have the matter adjudicated there.604 The Ninth Circuit has held that “a waiver of the right of removal must be clear and unequivocal.”605 In Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Serv., LLC, a case removed to federal district court, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s removal was untimely because the defendant had filed a demurrer in state court and did not remove the case until a year after the complaint was filed.606 The federal district court held that because the complaint did not specify an amount of damages, the defendant’s filing of a demurrer did not waive its right to remove.607 The court stressed that the defendant did not engage in “any conduct that manifested its intent to stay in state court” after removability was first ascertained, and therefore did not waive its right.608 Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has held that a defendant’s “choice to file a demurrer, rather than another form of responsive pleading, to [plaintiff’s] indeterminate FAC [First Amended Complaint] did not amount to a waiver of its right to remove.”609 599 698 F. App'x 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2017). 600 Id. (citing Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 789 F.3d 1111, 1119 (9th Cir. 2015)). 601 Id. at 889-90. 602 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). 603 Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1024. 604 Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230, 1240 (9th Cir. 1995). 605 Id. 606 Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Serv. LLC, 2008 WL 2693625, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 607 Id. 608 Id. 609 Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 881 F.3d 786, 791 (9th Cir. 2018).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4