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)

Download PDF
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: (415) 777-1688 Facsimile: (415) 777-2298 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 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?