Kruize v. Safeway, Inc.

Filing 11

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 05/25/11 ORDERING that plf's Sixth Claim for Relief [Breach of Employment Contract]; Seventh Claim for Relief [Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing]; Eight h Claim for Relief [Negligent Hiring and Retention]; and Ninth Claim for Relief [Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress] are hereby DISMISSED w/ prejudice. The remainder of plf's action, including her Fifth Claim for Relief subject to the Stipulation set forth in Paragraph 2 above, is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer. The parties shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs associated with the dismissal and remand. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP
WILLIAM F. MURPHY, ESQ. (SBN 082482)
J. CROSS CREASON, ESQ. (SBN 209492)
225 Bush Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-4207
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
SAFEWAY INC.

6
7
8
9
10
11

LAW OFFICE OF BOWMAN & ASSOCIATES
ROBERT C. BOWMAN, JR., ESQ. (SBN 232388)
KARA DANELLE KEISTER, ESQ. (SBN 250260)
2151 RIVER PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 105
SACRAMENTO, CA 95833
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAWN KRUIZE

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION

14
15

DAWN KRUIZE,
Plaintiff

16
17
18

Case No. 2:11-cv-00299-GEB -GGH

v.
SAFEWAY INC., et al.,
Defendant.

19
20

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER
DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS
WITH PREJUDICE, CLARIFYING
PLAINTIFF’S REMAINING CLAIMS,
AND REMANDING ACTION TO
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT.

21
22
23
24

Plaintiff DAWN KRUIZE (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant SAFEWAY INC. (“Safeway”)
hereby stipulate that the Court may enter an Order:
1.

Dismissing, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief [Breach of

25

Employment Contract], her Seventh Claim for Relief [Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good

26

Faith and Fair Dealing], her Eighth Claim for Relief [Negligent Hiring and Retention], and her

27
28

Ninth Claim for Relief [Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress]. The foregoing dismissal
Page 1 – CASE NO 2:11-cv-00299-GEB -GGH
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS; STIPULATION; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

with prejudice of Plaintiff’s Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Claims is binding in this and in

2

any other forum in which Plaintiff would or could seek to pursue such claims.

3

2.

Confirming that Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief for Wrongful Termination in

4

Violation of Public Policy is premised entirely on the violation of public policy or public

5

policies alleged in her First Claim for Relief [Age Discrimination in Violation of Government

6
7
8

Code §§ 12900 et seq. and 12940 et Seq.], her Second Claim for Relief [Disability
Discrimination in Violation of Government Code §§ 12900 et seq. and 12940 et seq.], her
Third Claim for Relief [Gender Discrimination in Violation of Government Code §§ 12900 et
Seq. and 12940 et Seq.], and her Fourth Claim for Relief [Retaliation in Violation of the

9
10
11
12
13
14

California Family Rights Act], and on no other public policy, and that Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim
for Relief for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy is in no way based upon any
alleged breach of any term of any collective bargaining agreement or other employment
contract with Safeway, whether written, oral or implied in fact or in law. This stipulation shall
be binding in any and all Courts or other forums in which this action may be heard.
3.

Remanding the action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of

15

Placer, based upon the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth

16

Claims for Relief, and the stipulation regarding the scope of her Fifth Claim for Relief set

17

forth in Paragraph 2 above, which stipulations eliminate the claims upon which original

18

subject matter jurisdiction in this Court (federal question jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1331) was

19

based under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (“§ 301”).

20

Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to the remand of this action and the un-dismissed

21

claims asserted herein to the court in which it was originally filed, the Superior Court of the

22

State of California for the County of Placer.

23
24
25
26
27

The parties believe there is good cause for the entry of an Order by the Court as
stipulated to by the parties, in that the foregoing will reduce the number of claims to be
addressed in discovery and in motion practice, and will eliminate a situation where the Court
would be asked to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, despite the removal of all federal claims from the action and the
fact that this action is in its early stage.

28

Page 2 – CASE NO 2:11-cv-00299-GEB -GGH
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS; STIPULATION; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Dated: May 24, 2011

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP
WILLIAM F. MURPHY, ESQ.
J. CROSS CREASON, ESQ.

3
4
By:

5
6
7
8

_/s/ J. Cross Creason________________
Attorneys for Defendant
Safeway Inc.

//
//
Dated: May 24, 2011

BOWMAN & ASSOCIATES
KARA KEISTER, ESQ.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

By:

_/s/ Kara Keister ___________________
Attorneys for Plaintiff Dawn Kruize

//
//

16

//

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
28

//
Page 3 – CASE NO 2:11-cv-00299-GEB -GGH
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS; STIPULATION; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

ORDER

2

Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the Court makes the following

3

ORDER:
Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief [Breach of Employment Contract]; Seventh Claim for

4
5
6
7

Relief [Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing]; Eighth Claim for
Relief [Negligent Hiring and Retention]; and Ninth Claim for Relief [Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress] are hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
The remainder of Plaintiff’s action, including her Fifth Claim for Relief subject to the

8

Stipulation set forth in Paragraph 2 above, is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of the
9
State of California for the County of Placer. The parties shall bear their own attorneys fees and
10
11
12

costs associated with the dismissal and remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Date: 5/25/2011

13
_________________________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17

DEAC_Signature-END:

18
61khh4bb
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 4 – CASE NO 2:11-cv-00299-GEB -GGH
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS; STIPULATION; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER