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.

Reyna v. Winery

April 24, 2009

MARK REYNA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GALLO WINERY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND

(Document 10)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND ACTION

(Document 11)

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff Mark Reyna ("Plaintiff") filed the instant Motions to Amend the Complaint and Remand the Action. The matter was heard on March 27, 2009, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Mina Ramirez appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Katherine Boyd appeared on behalf of Defendant Gallo Winery ("Defendant").

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the underlying employment action in Stanislaus Superior Court on July 23, 2008. Defendant removed the action to this Court on January 8, 2009, based on Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141, et seq. ("LMRA"). Defendant answered the complaint on January 13, 2009.

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed Motions to File a First Amended Complaint and Remand the Action. His Motion to Remand is predicated on the assumption that the Court will grant his Motion to Amend.

Defendant opposed the motions on March 13, 2009, and Plaintiff filed his replies on March 20, 2009.

After the hearing, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit another proposed First Amended Complaint. By order dated March 30, 2009, the Court explained that removal jurisdiction existed at the time of removal, and that Plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint did not clearly establish that his claims were based on state statutory law rather than beach of contract.

On April 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

ALLEGATIONS AND CAUSES OF ACTION IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

According to the proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was employed with Defendant from 2000 to 2006, and received positive reviews during this time. He suffered wrist injuries on the job in August 2001 and was put on light duty and given partial permanent disability.

In August 2002, he qualified and was certified for leave under the California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov. Code ยง 12945.2 ("CFRA"). Thereafter, Defendant made it difficult for Plaintiff to take his leave and unilaterally ...


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.