Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Elliott v. Siemens Building Technologies

March 16, 2009

MICHAEL ELLIOTT
v.
SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RAED DAKAK, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Lisa Bredahl Not Present

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

Before the Court is the motion to remand (the "Motion") filed by plaintiff Michael Elliott ("Plaintiff"). After considering the parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff worked for defendant Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. ("Siemens"), and defendant Raed Dakak ("Dakak") was Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. (Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ("Opp'n") Ex. A. ¶¶ 6-7.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court, alleging breach of implied contract against Siemens, as well as violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Govt. Code § 12940(a), (j), and (k), against Siemens and Dakak. (Opp'n Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not include Dakak in the heading for the second cause of action. But in the body of the second cause of action, Plaintiff said:

Government Code section 12940(j)(3) embodies fundamental, substantial, and well-established public policies of the State of California. Defendant

Dakak as an employee of Siemens, DOES 1-25, and each of them, is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section. Dakak is therefore personally responsible to Plaintiff for his individual acts of harassment against him.

Id. Ex. A. ¶ 19. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Plaintiff was a citizen of California, Dakak was a citizen of California, and Siemens was a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California. (Opp'n Ex. A ¶¶ 1-3.)

Siemens filed a Notice of Removal of Action to the United States District (the "Notice of Removal"). In the Notice of Removal, Siemens agreed that Plaintiff was a citizen of California and that Siemens was a Delaware corporation. (Notice of Removal ΒΆΒΆ 7, 12, 18.) But Siemens said that Siemens had its principal place of business in Illinois and that Dakak, while a citizen of California, was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.