STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

RECITALS

1. Plaintiff Danny McCrary ("Plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin (the "State Court") on or about June 3, 2013 against Campbell Soup Supply Company, LLC ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's complaint alleged causes of action for (1) Failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512), (2) Failure to Pay All Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194), (3) Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply With Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions (Cal. Labor Code § 226(a), (e), and Violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200.

2. On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which added a second cause of action for Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f) for Violations of Labor Code §§ 226(a), 226.7, 510 and 1194.

3. On July 3, 2013, Defendant removed this matter to this Court based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) ("CAFA") and diversity of citizenship.

4. On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, which added a cause of action for Failure to Pay Wages Due at Separation of Employment (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203).

5. Defendant answered the Second Amended Complaint on November 1, 2013.

6. The parties have met and conferred and agree that at this time the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff's complaint does not meet the jurisdictional minimum (e.g. $75,000 for Plaintiff's individual claims, or $5,000,000 for Plaintiff's putative class claims pursuant to CAFA). Plaintiff has agreed he will not seek more than $75,000 for plaintiff's individual claims or $5 million for Plaintiff's putative class claims pursuant to CAFA once the case is remanded to state court.

7. The parties agree that the proposed remand herein shall not affect Defendant's right to remove the action again if Plaintiff tries to avoid this amount in controversy stipulation.

STIPULATION

NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree that at this time there is less than $75,000 in controversy between Plaintiff individually and Defendant, and less than $5,000,000 in controversy between the proposed class and Defendant and, as a result, traditional diversity jurisdiction and CAFA jurisdiction by this Court at this time are not appropriate. Based thereon, the parties further stipulate that the action shall immediately be remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Joaquin.

SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

This case is remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, in the County of San Joaquin.