Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Richard v. A-Para Transit Corp., 4:17-cv-05299-HSG. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180319584 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION BY PARTIES TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT; ORDER THEREON HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . RECITALS Plaintiff ROY RICHARD ("Plaintiff") and Defendant A-PARA TRANSIT CORP, a California corporation ("Defendant") (together as the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, on August 4, 2017, Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all "aggrieved employees" under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), fil
More

STIPULATION BY PARTIES TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT; ORDER THEREON

RECITALS

Plaintiff ROY RICHARD ("Plaintiff") and Defendant A-PARA TRANSIT CORP, a California corporation ("Defendant") (together as the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2017, Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all "aggrieved employees" under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), filed a Representative Action in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. HG 17 870373 ("the Complaint").

WHEREAS, Defendant was served with the Complaint on August 14, 2017.

WHEREAS, on September 13, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of the Complaint and removed the Action to this Court.

WHEREAS, on September 13, 2017, this case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Spero.

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2017, this case was reassigned to this Court.

WHEREAS, on January 11, 2018, the Parties attended a mediation with Francis Ortman, Esq., but were not successful at reaching a resolution. The Parties, however, are continuing to discuss resolution.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant have met and conferred regarding Plaintiff's intent to file a motion to remand this action to the State Court.

WHEREAS, the Parties, after further meet and confer efforts, have agreed to remand this action to the State Court, subject to Plaintiff's filing of the First Amended Complaint, which revises the claims he is asserting to, among other things, exclude Defendants' unionized employees who are subject to a collective bargaining agreement from certain claims.

WHEREAS, Defendant does not hereby, or otherwise, admit the sufficiency of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint or the truth of any fact or claim alleged therein.

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2018, this Court granted the parties' request to e-file the First Amended Complaint and directed the parties to file a stipulation and proposed order remanding the case after Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff e-filed the First Amended Complaint on March 5, 2018.

WHEREAS, I, Daniel F. Gaines, attest that Keahn Morris has concurred to the filing of this stipulation.

STIPULATION

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED as follows:

1. This Action shall immediately be remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the above Stipulation between the Parties, and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The Action is immediately remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer