Deirdre Dunn v. SHC Services, Inc.

Filing 23

JOINT STIPULATION and ORDER to REMAND ACTION to State Court signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/18/2021. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MICHAEL P. ROCHE (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
BENJAMIN M. OSTRANDER (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
TRISTAN R. KIRK (BAR NO. 313262)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN th
LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, 38 Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
SHC SERVICES, INC.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14
15
16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEIRDRE DUNN, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21

v.
SHC SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Case No. 1:21-cv-00744-NONE-SAB
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND
ACTION TO STATE COURT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Complaint filed: March 30, 2021

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 143, Plaintiff Deirdre Dunn (“Plaintiff”) and

2

Defendant SHC Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and

3

through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to remand the above-entitled action to

4

the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno as Deirdre

5

Dunn v. SHC Services, Inc., Case No. 21CECG00896, in light of the Parties’

6

agreement to settle this Action (“Stipulation”). In support of their Stipulation, the

7

Parties state:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

1. Plaintiff originally filed her complaint on March 30, 2021 in the Fresno
County Superior Court entitled Deirdre Dunn v. SHC Services, Inc., Case
No. 21CECG00896.
2. Om May 6, 2021, Defendant removed the case to this Court (ECF No. 1) and
filed its answer to the complaint on May 13, 2021. (ECF No. 6.)
3. On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state
court. (ECF No. 7.)
4. On May 28, 2021, Defendant filed its opposition to the motion to remand.
(ECF No. 15.)
5. On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed her reply in support of the motion to remand.
(ECF No. 16.)
6. On October 27, 2021, a hearing on the motion to remand was held where

20

both parties presented oral argument to the Honorable Magistrate Judge

21

Stanley A. Boone.

22

7. On November 4, 2021, Magistrate Judge Boone issued Findings and

23

Recommendations Recommending Granting Plaintiff’s Remand Motion and

24

Remanding Action to State Court (“Findings and Recommendations”). (ECF

25

No. 21.)

26

8. Per the Findings and Recommendations, Defendant was permitted fourteen

27

(14) days to file and serve any objections it may have to the Findings and

28

Recommendations. (ECF No. 21.) Defendant’s deadline to file and serve any
1

JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

such objections is therefore November 18, 2021.
9. On November 9, 2021, the Parties attended a private mediation before

3

experienced mediator Hon. Carl J. West (Ret.) and reached a settlement of

4

all claims in this Action. The Parties subsequently executed a memorandum

5

of understanding (“MOU”) on November 12, 2021, and are in the process of

6

preparing a long-form stipulation of settlement.

7
8
9

10. Pursuant to the MOU, the Parties submit this Stipulation to remand this
Action to state court for the purposes of settlement only.
11. In the event the settlement does not become final for any reason, this

10

Stipulation will be void ab initio and Defendant will have the right to file

11

and serve objections to the Findings and Recommendations and to further

12

contest whether remand of this Action is appropriate through such

13

objections.

14
15
16

12. The Proposed Order Remanding Action to State Court is contained herein
below.
Dated: November 18, 2021

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

17
By: /s/ Tristan R. Kirk
Michael P. Roche (admitted pro hac vice)
Benjamin M. Ostrander (admitted pro hac vice)
Tristan R. Kirk
Attorneys for Defendant
SHC SERVICES, INC.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: November 18, 2021

SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
By: /s/ Ashkan Shakouri (as authorized on November
17, 2021)
Ashkan Shakouri
Sharon W. Lin
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEIRDRE DUNN
2

JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the joint stipulation to remand the above-captioned action to state
court, and for good cause shown, the above-captioned action is remanded to the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno as Deirdre Dunn v.
SHC Services, Inc., Case No. 21CECG00896, in light of the Parties’ agreement to
settle this action.
In the event the settlement does not become final for any reason, this stipulation
and order will be void ab initio and defendant will have the right to file and serve
objections to the findings and recommendations and to further contest whether remand
of this action is appropriate through such objections. Any such objections must be
filed within fourteen (14) days of the date on which the parties agree that the
settlement is no longer viable and will not be finalized such that the parties will
resume litigation of this action.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 18, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER