Filed: Aug. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION AND ORDER RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Plaintiffs Garrett Jenkins, Buford Brown, Cruz Castillo, and Germaine Vaughn ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Whitestone Group, Inc. ("Defendant"), (Plaintiffs and Defendant are collectively referred to hereafter as "The Parties") by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On or about September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County
Summary: STIPULATION TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION AND ORDER RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Plaintiffs Garrett Jenkins, Buford Brown, Cruz Castillo, and Germaine Vaughn ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Whitestone Group, Inc. ("Defendant"), (Plaintiffs and Defendant are collectively referred to hereafter as "The Parties") by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On or about September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County ..
More
STIPULATION TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION AND ORDER
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Garrett Jenkins, Buford Brown, Cruz Castillo, and Germaine Vaughn ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Whitestone Group, Inc. ("Defendant"), (Plaintiffs and Defendant are collectively referred to hereafter as "The Parties") by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. On or about September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, entitled Jenkins, et al. v. Whitestone Group, Inc., Case No. CGC-14-541930 (hereinafter, "The Action").
2. On November 5, 2014, Defendant removed the Action to the Northern District of California, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Defendant also believed that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), in that (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; (2) there is minimal diversity, where at least one plaintiff is diverse from one defendant; and (3) the monetary claims of 100 or more plaintiffs are proposed to be tried jointly on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claim involve common questions of law of fact. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).)
3. On June 1, 2015, the Parties reached a stipulated settlement of all claims, which Plaintiffs submitted to the Court for preliminary approval on July 20, 2015. Defendant filed a non-opposition to Plaintiffs' motion on July 28, 2015.
4. On August 17, 2015, Counsel for both Parties met and conferred regarding Defendant's basis for removal and the pending settlement, and the Parties agree that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Action, and that the Action should be remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court, where it was originally filed.
5. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court remand this Action to the San Francisco County Superior Court.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Parties shall comply with the above stipulation's provisions.
