Jimerson v. Genco Distribution System, Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 20 Motion to Continue (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 OAKLAND DIVISION 5 6 P.E. JIMERSON, on behalf of himself and a Case No: C 11-5157 SBA class of similarly situated persons, 7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE 8 vs. Docket 20. 9 GENCO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC., a 10 Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 On August 10, 2011, Plaintiff P.E. Jimerson (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action 15 complaint against Defendant Genco Distribution System, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the Superior 16 Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, alleging various wage and hour 17 violations under state law. Dkt. 1. Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis 18 of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1332(d)(2). Id. 20 On November 28, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to transfer this action to the 21 Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. 11. The hearing on this 22 motion is currently scheduled for April 3, 2012. On December 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a 23 motion to remand on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 24 CAFA. Dkt. 14. The hearing on this motion is currently scheduled for April 10, 2012. Id. 25 On January 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue Defendants’ motion to 26 transfer. Dkt. 20. In its motion, Plaintiff contends that the Court should not consider 27 Defendant’s request to transfer before it resolves the more fundamental issue of subject 28 matter jurisdiction. Id. On February 9, 2012, Defendant filed an opposition, arguing that 1 “it is perfectly proper for the Court to rule on the question of proper venue before 2 determining whether jurisdiction exists.” Dkt. 22 3 The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Since the presence of subject matter jurisdiction is a 4 threshold issue in every case, see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of 5 Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988), the Court finds it appropriate to 6 consider Plaintiff’s motion to remand prior to Defendant’s motion to transfer. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motion to continue is GRANTED. 9 2. The hearing on Defendant’s motion to transfer is CONTINUED to April 24, 10 2012 at 1:00 p.m. 11 3. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 This Order terminates Docket 20. Dated: 2/27/12 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?