Allen v. Utiliquest, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.(Terminating 13 Motion for Summary Judgment) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2013)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

OAKLAND DIVISION

4
5 JEFFREY H. ALLEN, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
6
Plaintiff,
7
vs.
8
UTILIQUEST, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100,
9 INCLUSIVE,
10

Case No: C 13-4466 SBA
ORDER

Defendants.

11
12

This is a wage and hour class action which Defendants removed from state court for a

13

second time on September 26, 2013. On October 18, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary

14

judgment, which is noticed for hearing on November 19, 2013. Dkt. 13. Four days later on

15

October 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which is noticed for hearing on November 26,

16

2013. Dkt. 16. Before the Court may consider the merits of a case, it must satisfy itself of its

17

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S.

18

574, 583 (1999). The Court therefore will consider Plaintiff’s motion to remand prior to

19

adjudicating Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Accordingly,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be

21

held in ABEYANCE pending adjudication of Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The motion for

22

summary judgment shall be taken off calendar and administratively terminated. In the event the

23

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to remand, Defendants may re-notice their motion on the Court’s

24

law and motion calendar. The motion to remand will be adjudicated without a hearing in

25

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2013

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge