Meeks v. HMS Host et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS 23 MOTION TO DISMISS AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/1/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2011)

Meeks v. HMS Host et al

Doc. 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 On February 1, 2011, Petitioner Michelle Meeks filed a 16 petition in San Mateo County Superior Court seeking to vacate an 17 arbitration award related to a dispute concerning her former 18 employment. 19 erroneously sued as HMS Host d/b/a Gordon Biersch @ SFO, and UNITE 20 HERE! Local 2, erroneously sued as Hotel Employees and Restaurant 21 Employees Local #2, removed her petition to federal court. 22 Petitioner's action was initially assigned to a magistrate 23 judge in the San Francisco Division. 24 before that magistrate judge, and the action was re-assigned to the 25 undersigned. 26 Petitioner has filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the 27 Oakland Division is not the proper venue for her lawsuit. 28 Under BARG declined to proceed Respondents Bay Area Restaurant Group (BARG), v. HMS HOST d/b/a GORDON BIERSCH @ SFO and HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL #2, Respondents. / MICHELLE MEEKS, Petitioner, No. C 11-01021 CW ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 23) AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Civil Local Rule 3-2(d), "all civil actions which arise in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo or Sonoma shall be assigned to the San Francisco Division or the Oakland Division." Petitioner asserts that her case arises from conduct the occurred either in the City and County of San Francisco or San Mateo County. Accordingly, the assignment of her case to the Oakland Division was appropriate and her motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Docket No. 23.)

On March 11, 2011, Respondents filed a joint motion to dismiss Petitioner's action. On March 22, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion Also

to remand, which she noticed for hearing on April 19, 2011.1

on March 22, Petitioner filed an "Opposition to Respondents Motions for summary judgment on Petitioner's Initial Complaint," which is apparently her response to Respondents' motion to dismiss. Respondents' reply in support of their motion to dismiss shall be due April 14, 2011. After their reply is filed, no additional

submissions regarding the motion may be filed without prior Court approval. Civil L.R. 7-3(d). Their motion to dismiss will be

taken under submission on the papers. Respondents' opposition to Petitioner's motion to remand shall also be due April 14, 2011. Petitioner's reply in support of her Her motion will be

motion to remand shall be due April 21, 2011.

Petitioner's motion was noticed for hearing less than thirty-five days from the date it was filed, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). Although she is proceeding pro se, Petitioner must follow the Civil Local Rules, which are available at www.cand.uscourts.gov/localrules. Her failure to do so in the future may result in the striking of any non-conforming submissions. 2

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

taken under submission on the papers. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/1/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

3

1 2 3 MEEKS et al, 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 6 HMS HOST et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michelle Meeks 1788 Hamlet Street San Mateo, CA 94403 Dated: April 1, 2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: CV11-01021 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on April 1, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

4