- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion
to Remand in Class Action Against Ricoh USA.
In the case of Saranay Sonny Ballungay v. Ricoh USA, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled on March 24, 2025, to deny the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, allowing the class action lawsuit to remain in federal court. The lawsuit, initially filed in California state court, accuses Ricoh USA, Inc. of wage and hour violations, including failure to compensate employees for time spent traveling between job sites and not reimbursing them for vehicle expenses.Plaintiff Saranay Sonny Ballungay, a former service technician for Ricoh USA, sought to have the case remanded to state court, arguing that the defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Specifically, Ballungay challenged the minimal diversity requirement and the amount in controversy threshold necessary for CAFA removal.
However, Judge Josephine L. Staton ruled that the minimal diversity requirement was met, as Ricoh USA is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, while Ballungay resides in California. Additionally, the court found that the total amount in controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million threshold, with the defendant estimating potential exposure from the claims to be over $6 million.
This ruling highlights the significance of accurately estimating the amount in controversy and the minimal diversity requirement when determining whether a class action lawsuit qualifies for federal jurisdiction under CAFA. It also reflects how wage-and-hour cases, particularly those involving large corporations, can meet the criteria for federal court jurisdiction.
For more details, see the court’s official order: Saranay Sonny Ballungay v. Ricoh USA, Inc. Case Information.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.