STIPULATION REGARDING JURISDICTION AND VENUE AND FOR DISMISSAL; ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff MARCUS SHOAF ("Plaintiff") and Defendant SUBURBAN PROPANE L.P. ("Defendant") (collectively the "Parties") enter this stipulation with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS

1. Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant on January 20, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California asserting diversity jurisdiction under U.S. Code, Title 28, § 1332(c)(l). (Complaint, ¶ 5.)

2. Defendant answered Plaintiff's complaint on April 9, 2018, asserting it is an operating limited partnership that issues publicly traded units and has unitholders that reside in California. (Answer, ¶ 5.)

3. On May 22, 2018, Defendant propounded special interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon Plaintiff, to which Plaintiff responded on June 27, 2018.

4. On July 10, 2018, Defendant's counsel notified Plaintiff's counsel by letter the federal district court lacks diversity jurisdiction because Defendant is an operating limited partnership that issues publicly traded units with unitholders residing in California. (See, e.g., Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc. (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1012.)

5. Between July 10, and July 31, 2018, the Parties met and conferred regarding jurisdiction and venue, arriving at this stipulation.

AGREEMENT

Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate:

6. In reliance on Defendant's representation that it issues publicly traded units with unitholders residing in California thus eliminating complete diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff will dismiss his action in the federal district court without prejudice.

7. Plaintiff will re-file his complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado, (the "State Court Action") within ten (10) court days following dismissal in the federal district court. Defendant's counsel will accept service on behalf of Defendant of Plaintiff's complaint in the State Court Action by U.S.P.S. First Class Mail.

8. Defendant will file its answer to Plaintiff's complaint in the State Court Action within the time prescribed by the California Code of Civil Procedure following service.

9. Defendant's May 22, 2018, special interrogatories and requests for production, together with Plaintiff's June 27, 2018, responses thereto, may be used by the Parties in the State Court Action for all purposes permitted under the California Civil Discovery Act, and shall be considered Defendant's first sets of special interrogatories and requests for production.

10. Defendant's time to file a motion to compel responses to its May 22, 2018 discovery requests shall be extended to thirty (30) days from the date its answer is filed in the State Court Action.

11. The Parties may file this stipulation in any court, as appropriate, if necessary to explain or enforce its terms.

12. The Parties stipulate to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party shall bear his/its own costs and attorneys' fees.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation (ECF No. 8) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this matter is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.