STIPULATION TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION; ORDER

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

TO THIS HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG:

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ ("Plaintiff") and SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT ("Defendant") stipulate as follows:

1. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, entitled: DANIEL RODRIGUEZ v. SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT; COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; and DOES I through 100, inclusive, Case No. 19-CIV-06667 (hereinafter the "Action").

2. On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice named Defendant County of San Mateo.

3. On January 21, 2020, Defendant San Mateo County Transit District filed its Answer to the Complaint in the California Superior Court for San Mateo County.

4. On January 21, 2020, Defendant San Mateo County Transit District filed a notice of removal of the Action pursuant to U.S.C. sections 1331, 1441 and 1446 based upon the presence of a claim based upon the Americans with Disabilities Act (42. U.S.C. section 12101) with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

5. On January 27, 2020, Defendant completed the removal process by filing a conformed copy of the notice of removal with the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

6. The Parties met and conferred on January 30, 2020. During the Parties' discussion, Plaintiff's counsel indicated to counsel for Defendant San Mateo County Transit District that Plaintiff's Complaint inadvertently referenced the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff only intended to bring the action pursuant to California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code §§ 12920-12940, et seq. Plaintiff did not intend to include a cause of action pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act and it was inadvertently mentioned in the Complaint.

7. During the Parties' discussion on January 30, 2020, counsel for Defendant San Mateo County Transit District indicated that Defendant would be willing to stipulate to remanding the case back to the California Superior Court for San Mateo County so long as Defendant was provided an opportunity to review Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint prior to filing the First Amended Complaint in this Court.

8. On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel provided counsel for Defendant San Mateo County Transit District with a copy of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

9. On February 4, 2020, counsel for Defendant indicated that Defendant would not oppose Plaintiff's filing of the First Amended Complaint and given that Plaintiff deleted the only federal claim, Defendant would agree to stipulate to remand the action to state court.

10. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in this Court.

11. The Parties hereby stipulate that the Action be remanded to California Superior Court for San Mateo County.

12. The Parties hereby stipulate that Defendant has 30 days after the United States District Court Northern District of California enters its Order to Remand to file its response to the First Amended Complaint.

13. The Parties further stipulate that each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the removal and subsequent remand of the Action pursuant to this stipulation and order.

ORDER

On February 10, 2020, the Parties to the above-referenced action filed a Stipulation to Remand Removed Action. The Court having reviewed that stipulation and good cause appearing, orders as follows:

1. The Parties' stipulation is approved;

2. Northern District of California case number 3:20-cv-00437-RS entitled Daniel Rodriguez v. San Mateo County Transit District, et al., is hereby remanded to California Superior Court for San Mateo County; and

3. Defendant shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to respond to the First Amended Complaint

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.