McCrary v. Campbell Soup Supply Company, LLC et al

Filing 31

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 6/18/2014 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the State of California, in the County of San Joaquin. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

KENNETH S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 049045
[e-mail]
DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488
[e-mail]
ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754
[e-mail]
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff DANNY McCRARY

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

RONALD W. BROWN, ESQ. SBN 107340
[e-mail]
BARBARA A. COTTER, ESQ. SBN 142590
[e-mail]
CARRIE E. BUSHMAN, ESQ. SBN 18613
[e-mail]
MEG E. WILSON, ESQ. SBN 278386
[e-mail]
COOK BROWN, LLP
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
CAMBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY, L.L.C.

17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22

DANNY McCRARY, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the general public,

23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE
COURT

v.
CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY
L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

28

1

2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT

RECITALS

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

1.

Plaintiff Danny McCrary (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing a class

action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San
Joaquin (the “State Court”) on or about June 3, 2013 against Campbell Soup Supply
Company, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action for (1) Failure
to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512), (2)
Failure to Pay All Wages (Cal. Labor Code §§ 510, 1194), (3) Knowing and Intentional
Failure to Comply With Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions (Cal. Labor Code §
226(a), (e), and Violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200.
2.

On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which added a

second cause of action for Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f) for Violations of
Labor Code §§ 226(a), 226.7, 510 and 1194.
3.

On July 3, 2013, Defendant removed this matter to this Court based on the

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”) and diversity of
citizenship.
4.

On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, which

added a cause of action for Failure to Pay Wages Due at Separation of Employment (Cal.
Labor Code §§ 201-203).
5.

Defendant answered the Second Amended Complaint on November 1, 2013.

6.

The parties have met and conferred and agree that at this time the amount

placed in controversy by Plaintiff’s complaint does not meet the jurisdictional minimum (e.g.
$75,000 for Plaintiff’s individual claims, or $5,000,000 for Plaintiff’s putative class claims
pursuant to CAFA). Plaintiff has agreed he will not seek more than $75,000 for plaintiff’s
individual claims or $5 million for Plaintiff’s putative class claims pursuant to CAFA once
the case is remanded to state court.
7.

The parties agree that the proposed remand herein shall not affect Defendant’s

right to remove the action again if Plaintiff tries to avoid this amount in controversy
stipulation.

2

2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT

1
2

STIPULATION
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through their attorneys of

3

record, hereby stipulate and agree that at this time there is less than $75,000 in controversy

4

between Plaintiff individually and Defendant, and less than $5,000,000 in controversy

5

between the proposed class and Defendant and, as a result, traditional diversity jurisdiction

6

and CAFA jurisdiction by this Court at this time are not appropriate. Based thereon, the

7

parties further stipulate that the action shall immediately be remanded to the Superior Court

8

for the State of California, County of San Joaquin.

9

SO STIPULATED.

10
11

Dated: June 18, 2014

12

/s/ Alex P. Katofsky
ALEX P. KATOFSKY
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff DANNY McCRARY

13
14
15

Dated: June 18, 2014

16
17
18
19

/s/ Barbara A. Cotter (as authorized on 6/4/14)
BARBARA A. COTTER
COOK BROWN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT

1
2
3
4

ORDER
This case is remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, in the County
of San Joaquin.
Dated: June 18, 2014

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

4

2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT