Huang v. Avanquest North America Inc et al

Filing 8

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL re #7 Stipulation filed by Winnie Huang. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/29/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2011)

Huang v. Avanquest North America Inc et al

Doc. 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Roberto Ripamonti, Esq. (SBN 259123) Tsao-Wu, Chow & Yee LLP The Monadnock Building 685 Market Street, Suite 460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorney for Plaintiff, Winnie Huang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WINNIE HUANG, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 14 15 AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 11-0753-EMC JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL ; ORDER

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 16
COME NOW Plaintiff WINNIE HUANG and Defendant AVANQUEST NORTH

17
AMERICA, INC., (collectively "the Parties") and, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules

18
of Civil Procedure, jointly stipulate to dismiss this case without prejudice. In support of their Joint

19
Stipulation of Dismissal, the Parties show as follows:

20
1. In her complaint, Plaintiff in this case alleged causes of action for wrongful termination in

21
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, §§ 102(a), 104(a), 29

22 U.S.C.A. §§ 2612(a), 2614(a), and its California counterpart, the California Family 23 Rights Act (CFRA) under California Gov't Code § 12945.2(I)(1), among other causes of 24 action.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Case No.: 11-0753-EMC

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. Under their respective relevant statutes, both of those causes of action only apply in cases

where the aggrieved employee works at a worksite which employs at least 50 employees over a 75 mile radius.
3. Defendant has asserted that it does not employ a sufficient number of employees at

Plaintiff's worksite to be covered by either the FMLA or CFRA's jurisdiction.
4. Based on Defendant's assertion, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss those causes of action

with prejudice.
5. As the application of those statutes are the only potential federal question at issue before

this Court, and the remaining causes of action are all based solely on California law and 10 more appropriately adjudicated in a California Superior Court, both parties have agreed 11 to dismiss the current case without prejudice, and attempt to reach equitable settlement. 12 Should such attempts fail, Plaintiffs will re-file the remaining claims in California 13 Superior Court. 14
WHEREFORE, the Parties stipulate that this case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

15
41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16 17 18 19 20 21 Dated: March 28, 2011 22 23 24
RT U O
S

Jointly stipulated this 25th day of March, 2011.

Dated: March 25, 2011 BY:

Tsao-Wu, Chow & Yee LLP ____/s/ Roberto Ripamonti___ Roberto Ripamonti, Esq Attorney for Plaintiff, Winnie Huang

IT IS SO ORDERED: BY:

Fisher & Phillips LLP ____/s/ Jennifer Achtert__ Jennifer Achtert, Esq Attorney for Defendant Avanquest North America, Inc.

UNIT ED

SD _______________ ISTRICT C TE TA Edward M. Chen U.S. Magistrate Judge ERED O ORD _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2
R NIA

IT IS S

Case No.: 11-0753-EMC

ER

N

OF

A

C

LI

FO

. Chen dward M Judge E

NO

RT

H