FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 30 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD WILLIAMS, on behalf of No. 19-56121
himself and all others similarly situated;
THE LENNY WILLIAMS D.C. No.
PRODUCTION COMPANY, a California 2:18-cv-09691-RGK-PJW
corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, MEMORANDUM*
v.
WARNER MUSIC GROUP
CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; WARNER BROS.
RECORDS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 21, 2019**
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Warner Music Group Corp. and Warner Records Inc. (WBR) appeal from
the district court’s sua sponte remand of Leonard Williams’ putative class action
alleging that WBR underpaid royalties owed to potentially thousands of persons
and entities for sound recordings streamed in foreign countries. The district court
held that WBR had not made the requisite showing that the matter in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000.
This appeal is controlled by our recent decision in Arias v. Residence Inn by
Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019), which vacated a similar remand order. In
Arias we held “that when a notice of removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal
court jurisdiction, a district court may not remand the case back to state court
without first giving the defendant an opportunity to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.” Id. at 925. We
conclude that in this case WBR’s notice of removal “plausibly alleges a basis for
federal court jurisdiction,” and accordingly we vacate the district court’s sua sponte
remand order.
On remand, should the district court again consider remanding this action to
the state court, it should follow our holdings in Arias that: (1) “a removing
defendant’s notice of removal ‘need not contain evidentiary submissions’ but only
2
plausible allegations of the jurisdictional elements”; (2) “when a defendant’s
allegations of removal jurisdiction are challenged, the defendant’s showing on the
amount in controversy may rely on reasonable assumptions”; and (3) “when a
statute or contract provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees, prospective
attorneys’ fees must be included in the assessment of the amount in controversy.”
Id. at 922 (quoting Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., 755 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th
Cir. 2015)).
The district court’s order remanding this action to the state court is
VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the district court.
3