Filed: Feb. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiffs ANTHONY MEDRANO and NICOLA GALASSI ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant PARTY CITY CORPORATION ("Defendant") (jointly, the "Parties") by and through their respective counsel of record hereby stipulate as follows and mutually request that the Court approve and enter the proposed Order in accordance with this Stipulation. STIPULATION 1. On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion f
Summary: STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiffs ANTHONY MEDRANO and NICOLA GALASSI ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant PARTY CITY CORPORATION ("Defendant") (jointly, the "Parties") by and through their respective counsel of record hereby stipulate as follows and mutually request that the Court approve and enter the proposed Order in accordance with this Stipulation. STIPULATION 1. On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion fo..
More
STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED] ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiffs ANTHONY MEDRANO and NICOLA GALASSI ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant PARTY CITY CORPORATION ("Defendant") (jointly, the "Parties") by and through their respective counsel of record hereby stipulate as follows and mutually request that the Court approve and enter the proposed Order in accordance with this Stipulation.
STIPULATION
1. On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 remanding this Action back to the Superior Court for the State of California (the "Motion").
2. Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion on February 21, 2017 (the "Opposition").
3. Plaintiffs' Motion is currently set for hearing on March 6, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 of the above-entitled Court.
4. The Parties have discussed the Motion and Opposition and agree to the following:
• Defendant will not assert, argue or take the position at any time going forward in this matter that this Court lacks jurisdiction, under Article III of the United States Constitution or otherwise, to adjudicate this case;
• Defendant will amend its answer to remove the second sentence of the First Affirmative Defense. Specifically, Defendant's Amended Answer will delete the words, "Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete and particularized harm but rather a bare procedural violation, and therefore lack standing under Article III of the United States Constitution." A copy of the proposed Amended Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
• Plaintiffs withdraw their Motion and request that the court vacate the hearing.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the Court orders the following:
1. Defendant will not assert, argue or take the position at any time going forward in this matter that the Court lacks jurisdiction, under Article III of the United States Constitution or otherwise, to adjudicate this case;
2. Defendant is granted leave to file an amended answer that removes only the language in the second sentence of the First Affirmative Defense as follows: "Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete and particularized harm but rather a bare procedural violation, and therefore lack standing under Article II of the United States Constitution."
3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand is deemed withdrawn and the March 6, 2017 hearing is vacated.
