[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

ANDRÉ BIROTTE, Jr., District Judge.

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, which is incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

1. On July 8, 2011, Defendant Joseph Baumann ("Mr. Baumann") filed a representative action (the "Baumann Action") under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") against Chase Investment Services Corp., JPMorgan Chase Bank and JPMorgan Chase & Co. for claims related to his employment. See Baumann v. Chase Investment Services Corporation, Los Angeles Superior Case No. BC464979. Defendants removed the Baumann Action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), and Mr. Baumann moved to remand. The district court denied Mr. Baumann's motion to remand, which Mr. Baumann appealed. The Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed the district court's ruling. Baumann v. Chase Investment Services Corp., 747 F.3d 1117, 1117 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 870, 190 L.Ed.2d 702 (2014). The Baumann Action is currently pending in the California Superior Court.

2. JPMorgan Securities, LLC ("JPMS") initiated the instant action against Mr. Baumann for equitable, declaratory, and prospective injunctive relief concerning the terms of an arbitration agreement in his employment contract ("Employment Contract"). (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 1.) According to JPMS, Mr. Baumann agreed to arbitrate all "Covered Claims" through binding arbitration, including the claims pending in the Baumann Action. (Id. at ¶ 22.) JPMS alleged that "In violation of his obligations under the Arbitration Agreement, Baumann brought and continues to bring his claims in court and on a representative basis. . ." (Id. at ¶ 33.) JPMS further alleged that "Baumann, by purporting to act on behalf of the State and by proceeding with a representative action under PAGA in contravention of his agreement to arbitrate, is engaged in an ongoing violation of Plaintiff's federal rights under the [Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")] and the Supremacy Clause." (Id. at ¶ 43.) JPMS further alleged that "Bauman breached, and continues to breach, the arbitration agreement by filing, and continuing to pursue, the State Court Lawsuit." (Id. at ¶ 55.) JMPS also alleged "Bauman breached, and continues to breach, the Arbitration Agreement by failing to submit his individual claims to arbitration in accordance with his contractual arbitration agreement, even after Plaintiff requested such submission." (Id. at ¶ 56.)

3. On May 11, 2015, Mr. Baumann moved to dismiss JPMS' claims. (Dkt. No. 14.) In granting Mr. Baumann's Motion to Dismiss, the Court ruled that the Federal Anti-Injunction Act and Younger Doctrine bar JPMS' claims. (Dkt. No. 45.) The Court also ruled that Chase's claims fail because the FAA does not preempt the plaintiff's right to pursue representative PAGA claims. Because this failure cannot be cured by the pleading of additional facts, the Court granted Mr. Baumann's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

4. The Court now enters Judgment for Mr. Baumann. The matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, but the Court retains ancillary jurisdiction over the parties to, inter alia, rule on any motions for attorneys' fees and costs. See K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.