Medrano et al v. Party City Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

Filing 12

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/28/2017 WITHDRAWING 6 Motion to Remand and the 3/6/2017 is VACATED. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488
[e-mail]
ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754
[e-mail]
EVAN S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 287668
[e-mail]
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
Calabasas, California 91301
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANTHONY MEDRANO and NICOLA GALASSI, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ANTHONY MEDRANO and NICOLA CASE NO: 2:16-cv-02996-WBS-EFB
GALASSI, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.

STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED]
ORDER

PARTY CITY CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Date: March 6, 2017
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 5, 14th Floor
Defendants.
Judge: William B. Shubb

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Plaintiffs ANTHONY MEDRANO and NICOLA GALASSI (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant

2

PARTY CITY CORPORATION (“Defendant”) (jointly, the “Parties”) by and through their

3

respective counsel of record hereby stipulate as follows and mutually request that the Court approve

4

and enter the proposed Order in accordance with this Stipulation.
STIPULATION

5
1.

6
7

1447 remanding this Action back to the Superior Court for the State of California (the “Motion”).
2.

8
9

Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion on February 21, 2017 (the

“Opposition”).
Plaintiffs’ Motion is currently set for hearing on March 6, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in

3.

10
11

On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

Courtroom 5 of the above-entitled Court.
4.

12

The Parties have discussed the Motion and Opposition and agree to the following:


13

Defendant will not assert, argue or take the position at any time going forward in this

14

matter that this Court lacks jurisdiction, under Article III of the United States

15

Constitution or otherwise, to adjudicate this case;


16

Defendant will amend its answer to remove the second sentence of the First

17

Affirmative Defense. Specifically, Defendant’s Amended Answer will delete the

18

words, “Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete and particularized harm but rather a

19

bare procedural violation, and therefore lack standing under Article III of the United

20

States Constitution.” A copy of the proposed Amended Answer is attached hereto as

21

Exhibit “A.”


22
23
24

Plaintiffs withdraw their Motion and request that the court vacate the hearing.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: February 28, 2017

GAINES & GAINES
A Professional Law Corporation

25
26

By: /s/ Daniel F. Gaines
DANIEL F. GAINES
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
28

///
-1STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

DATED: February 27, 2017

2

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

By: /s/ Tyreen G. Torner (*as authorized on 2/24/17)
DAVID FAUSTMAN
TYREEN G. TORNER

3
4

Attorneys for Defendant

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

ORDER
Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the Court orders the following:
1.

Defendant will not assert, argue or take the position at any time going forward in this matter

that the Court lacks jurisdiction, under Article III of the United States Constitution or otherwise, to
adjudicate this case;
2.

Defendant is granted leave to file an amended answer that removes only the language in the

second sentence of the First Affirmative Defense as follows: “Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete
and particularized harm but rather a bare procedural violation, and therefore lack standing under
Article II of the United States Constitution.”
3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand is deemed withdrawn and the March 6, 2017 hearing is

vacated.
Dated: February 28, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED] ORDER