Hovater, et al., v. Winco Foods, LLC et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 9 MOTION to REMAND signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/23/10. (Kaminski, H)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Alfred L. Sanderson (State Bar No. 186071) Kristina M. Launey (State Bar No. 221335) Jason D. Glenn (State Bar No. 244470) 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, California 95814-4428 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant WINCO FOODS, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MANDI HOVATER, individually and on behalf ) of all similarly situated current and former ) employees of WINCO FOODS, LLC, and ) WINCO FOODS, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) WINCO FOODS, LLC, WINCO FOODS, INC. ) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) Case No. 2-10-CV-00621-JAM-DAD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND Date: June 16, 2010 Time: 9:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez Trial Date: None Set Complaint filed: February 18, 2010

Plaintiff Mandi Hovater's Motion to Remand came on for hearing before this Court on June 16, 2010, the Honorable John A. Mendez presiding. Marta Manus appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Alfred L. Sanderson, Jr. appeared on behalf of defendant WinCo Foods, LLC. The Court, having read and considered all papers filed in conjunction with this motion and having considered the parties' oral argument at the hearing on the motion, orders as follows: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff argued that because only state law claims remain after the filing of a First Amended Complaint, the court has discretion to remand the case. The Court holds that, notwithstanding the filing of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and the dismissal of former plaintiff Jackson, it retains subject matter jurisdiction 1
[Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
12445932v.1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

because it had diversity jurisdiction at the time of defendant's timely removal. See Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 2006). For these reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez________________ Hon. John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
[Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
12445932v.1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com