Morfin et al v. Cruz et al

Filing 10

Stipulation to Remand Case to Merced County Superior Court; ORDER Thereon, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/9/2015. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Della Barnett, State Bar #88649
R. Erandi Zamora State Bar #281929
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
2210 K Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, CA 95816
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Enrique Martínez, State Bar #206884
John E. Hill, State Bar #45338
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL
333 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 500
Oakland, CA 94621
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
and the Plaintiff Class

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17

JESUS MORFIN, LAURENTINO
VARGAS, ASENCION LICEA, and
FELIPE CRUZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

18

STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE TO
MERCED COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; ORDER THEREON

Plaintiffs,

19

Case No.: 1:14-CV-01957 LJO BAM

vs.

20
21
22

VELDHUIS NORTH DAIRY, a business
organization, form unknown, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
1

1

Plaintiffs Jesus Morfin, Laurentino Vargas, Asencion Liceo, and Felipe Cruz, individually

2

and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly-situated individuals (“Plaintiffs”), and defendant

3

Veldhuis North Dairy (“Defendant”) (collectively, “the Parties”), by and through their respective

4
counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
5
6
STIPULATION

7
8
9
10
11

1.

On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs commenced an action against the Defendant in

the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Merced, entitled Morfin, et al. v. Veldhuis
North Dairy, et al., Case No. CMV 017 297. Plaintiffs filed and served a First Amended
Complaint on February 19, 2014. In November 2014, the Named Plaintiffs notified defense

12
13
14

counsel of their intention to file a Second Amended Complaint, which would have, inter alia,
added claims as to certain class members based on the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.

15

sections 201, et seq. On or about December 8, 2014, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of the

16

Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b) based on Plaintiffs’ intention to file the proposed

17

Second Amended Complaint, which would have provided a basis for this Court’s federal question

18
19

jurisdiction. The Action was assigned Case No. 1:14-CV-01957 BAM.
2.

On December 14, 2014, the Parties reached a mediated settlement of this matter

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

whereby the Second Amended Complaint will not be filed. As a result, there is no arguable basis
for this Court’s jurisdiction.
3.

Therefore, the Parties stipulate that this action should immediately be remanded to

the Merced County Superior Court.
4.

Each Party shall bear his or its own attorneys’ fees and costs with respect to the

removal and subsequent remand of the Action pursuant to this Stipulation and Order.

27
5.

This Stipulation moots all pending matters before this Court and all pending

28
2

1
2
3

deadlines and hearings in this case should be taken off the Court’s calendar.
6.

The Parties further agree that this Stipulation will not preclude Defendants from

seeking to remove this action to federal court at a later time if the Merced Superior Court denies

4
preliminary or final approval of the proposed settlement and the Parties cannot reach an
5
6

alternative agreement within thirty days of the order denying approval. In the event settlement

7

approval is denied, Plaintiffs agree not to assert that Defendants’ failure to remove within

8

statutory period is a basis for remand.

9
10
Dated: March 3, 2015

BERLINER COHEN

11
12

By:

13

/s/ Susan E. Bishop
Susan Bishop
Attorneys for Defendants

14
15

Date: March 3, 2015

CALIF. RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL

16
17

By:

18
19

/s/ Enrique Martinez
Enrique Martínez
Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs
and the Plaintiff Class

20
ORDER

21
22

The Parties to the above-referenced action having filed a Stipulation to Remand Removed

23
24
25

Action, the Court having reviewed that Stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT

26

1.

The Parties’ Stipulation is approved;

27

2.

This Action is hereby remanded to the Merced County Superior Court;

28

3.

Each Party shall bear his or its own attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with
3

1

respect to the removal and remand of this Action;

2
3

4.

All pending deadlines and hearings in this Action are hereby vacated

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 9, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4