DeLarosa v. Coca Cola Company

Filing 17

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 16 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Dismissal Without Prejudice filed by Luis A DeLarosa. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/18/17. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Gregory N. Karasik (SBN 115834)
Karasik Law Firm
11835 W. Olympic Blvd. Ste. 1275
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363)
Davtyan Professional Law Corporation
21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LUIS A. DE LAROSA

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

LUIS A. DE LAROSA, individually
and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15
16
17

THE COCA COLA COMPANY; and
DOES 1 through 10.

Case No. 3:17-CV-02603-EMC
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

Defendants.

18
19
20

Plaintiff Luis A. De Larosa (“Plaintiff”) and defendant The Coca Cola Company,

21

dba Coca-Cola North America (“Defendant”), hereby enter into the following

22

stipulation and request the Court to enter an order in accordance herewith.
STIPULATION

23
24
25
26
27
28

1.

Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on April 3, 2017, in the

Superior Court for County of Napa.
2.

On May 5, 2017, Defendant timely removed the action to this Court on the

basis of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
3.

Plaintiff intends to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for civil

1
STIPULATION and [proposed] ORDER RE DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1

penalties under the Private Attorney General Act. Plaintiff’s intended PAGA cause of

2

action is not a “class action” under CAFA.

3

4.

Given the anticipated amendment by Plaintiff to add a PAGA cause of

4

action, and for other procedural reasons, Defendant has agreed that the claims may be

5

properly litigated in state court.

6

5.

So that Plaintiff may proceed to litigate his original and PAGA claims in

7

state court, the parties mutually request that the Court dismiss this action without

8

prejudice, with each party to bear its own respective costs and fees, with the statute of

9

limitations on Plaintiffs’ claims to be tolled such that Plaintiff may file a new complaint

10

in state court without any change to the alleged liability period for Plaintiff’s claims

11

based on the April 3, 2017, filing date of Plaintiff’s original complaint.

12

Dated: July 13, 2017

KARASIK LAW FIRM
DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

13
14

By

15

/s/ Gregory N. Karasik
Gregory N. Karasik
Attorneys for Plaintiff

16
17

Dated: July 13, 2017

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

18
19

By

20
21

/s/ Maria R. Harrington
Maria R. Harrington
Attorneys for Defendant
ORDER

Good cause having been shown, the Court hereby orders that this action is

23

dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own respective costs and fees,

24

with the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs’ claims to be tolled such that Plaintiff may

25

file a new complaint in state court without any change to the alleged liability period for

26

Plaintiff’s claims based on the April 3, 2017, filing TATES DISofICPlaintiff’s original complaint.
date TR T C
. Chen

dward M

RT

Judge E

R NIA

_______________________________
United States District Court Judge
FO

July 18, 2017
Dated: ________________

NO

H

ER
C
2
N
OF
D IS T
STIPULATION and [proposed] ORDER RE DISMISSAL RICT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
A

28

ERED

O ORD

IT IS S

LI

27

UNIT
ED

S

RT
U
O

22