McLane Foodservice Wage Lawsuit Stays in Federal Court
/
A wage-and-hour lawsuit against McLane Foodservice, Inc. will continue in federal court after a Northern District of California judge denied the plaintiff’s request to send the case back to state court. The lawsuit, filed by John Thornhill, alleges violations of the California Labor Code involving wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, final pay, wage statements, expense reimbursement, and unfair competition.
Case: John Thornhill v. McLane Foodservice, Inc
Court: United States District Court Northern District of California
Case No.: 5:25-cv-07475-EKL
Plaintiff: a McLane Foodservice Hourly Employee
The named plaintiff is John Thornhill. According to the complaint as summarized in the court’s order, Thornhill worked for McLane Foodservice in California as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee from approximately November 2021 to July 2023.
Thornhill brought the lawsuit as a proposed class action on behalf of other people who worked for McLane in California as hourly paid or non-exempt employees during the relevant statutory period. At this stage, the court did not determine whether Thornhill or any proposed class member was owed unpaid wages, penalties, reimbursements, or other relief.
Defendant: California Employer Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations
The defendant is McLane Foodservice, Inc. After the case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, McLane removed it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
McLane relied on CAFA, which allows certain class actions to be heard in federal court when specific requirements are met. Those requirements generally include minimal diversity, at least 100 proposed class members, and an amount in controversy greater than $5 million.
The Case History in Thornhill v. McLane Foodservice
The plaintiff originally filed the lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court. McLane later removed the lawsuit to federal court, arguing that CAFA conferred federal jurisdiction. Thornhill responded by moving to remand the case, hoping the court would return it to state court. The complaint asserted eight causes of action:
Minimum wage/wage violations
Overtime violations
Meal period violations
Rest period violations
Failing to provide timely wages after termination
Wage statement violations
Failing to reimburse employees for work expenses
California Unfair Competition Law violations
The complaint did not state a specific damages amount. Instead, Thornhill sought damages and other relief in amounts to be proven later. That left the court to evaluate McLane’s calculations and decide whether the amount in controversy crossed CAFA’s $5 million threshold.
McLane first estimated that more than $5.9 million was in controversy based on waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, and related attorneys’ fees. After Thornhill challenged removal, McLane submitted additional calculations and estimated the total amount in controversy at more than $11 million.
What Question Was the Court Considering?
The central question in the January 16, 2026 order was not whether the wage-and-hour allegations were true. The court instead considered whether McLane had shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.
That distinction matters. In removal disputes, the amount in controversy is not a damages award. It is not a finding that the defendant owes the amount calculated. It is an estimate of what could be at stake if the plaintiff were to prevail on the claims.
After considering the materials and estimates provided by McLane, the court found them sufficient to support CAFA jurisdiction (amid challenges from Thornhill).
The court reviewed McLane’s assumptions and supporting materials, including estimates tied to waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, attorneys’ fees, and other alleged Labor Code violations. Thornhill challenged those estimates, but the court found McLane’s showing sufficient for CAFA jurisdiction.
Because the court concluded that more than $5 million was in controversy, it denied Thornhill’s motion to remand. The case remained in federal court.
Why This Case Matters for Wage and Hour Lawsuits
This case is a useful reminder that wage-and-hour lawsuits can turn on procedural issues long before the court reaches the underlying employment claims. A lawsuit may begin in California state court, but a defendant can remove it to federal court if CAFA applies.
For California Employees: this case is an example of how alleged wage violations can be litigated as part of a proposed class action that includes broader payroll practices.
For California Employers: this case highlights the importance of payroll records, class-size estimates, penalty calculations, and declarations when jurisdiction is disputed.
The order also draws a clear line between potential exposure and actual liability. McLane did not have to prove that it owed the amounts estimated. It had to show that the stakes of the lawsuit, based on the allegations and reasonable assumptions, exceeded CAFA’s jurisdictional minimum.
While the wage violations, wage statement violations, and alleged failure to reimburse employees for work expenses remained unresolved in the order, the case instead read like a jurisdictional ruling.
FAQ: Learning More About Employment Law
Q: Why did McLane Foodservice remove the case to federal court?
A: McLane removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act. CAFA allows certain proposed class actions to proceed in federal court when the statutory requirements are met, including when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
Q: What did John Thornhill ask the court to do?
A: Thornhill asked the court to remand the case to state court. He argued that McLane had not met its burden to show that the amount in controversy exceeded CAFA’s $5 million requirement.
Q: What did the court decide?
A: The court denied Thornhill’s motion to remand. It found that McLane had shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that more than $5 million was in controversy.
Q: Does the amount in controversy mean McLane owes more than $5 million?
A: No. The amount in controversy is not an award of damages and does not establish liability. It reflects the amount potentially at stake based on the allegations and the relief sought.
Q: Was a class certified in this case?
A: No class was certified in the January 16, 2026 order. The court described the lawsuit as a putative class action, meaning Thornhill sought to represent a proposed class.
Q: Why is this case relevant to California employees?
A: The case shows how California wage-and-hour claims may involve both employment-law allegations and procedural disputes over where the case should be heard. Issues such as unpaid wages, meal and rest breaks, wage statements, and final pay can also affect whether a proposed class action satisfies CAFA’s federal jurisdiction requirements.
California wage-and-hour cases can involve unpaid wages, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, final pay, wage statements, expense reimbursement, and complex procedural questions about whether a case belongs in state or federal court. If you believe your workplace rights were violated, an experienced California employment law attorney can help you understand the claims that may be available to you. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP represents employees in wage and hour, class action, and other employment law matters throughout California. To discuss a potential claim, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP today.
