UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 30, 2009
VERONICA BECERRA, AN INDIVIDUAL; WILLIAMS HERRERA LUIS, AN INDIVIDUAL; VANNESSA CASTRO, AN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE OLIVER W. WANGER INDIVIDUAL; AURORA HOLGUIN, AN INDIVIDUAL; ALMA LANDEROS, AN INDIVIDUAL; ADALBERTO HERNANDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ELEUTERIA SOSA MENDOZA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, D/B/A THE FRESNO BEE; MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, D/B/A THE FRESNO BEE; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wagner United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND AND REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
On December 19, 2008, Plaintiffs filed this purported class-action lawsuit against Defendants The McClatchy Company and McClatchy Newspapers Inc. ("Defendants"), both doing business as "The Fresno Bee," in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno. Plaintiffs' complaint contains eight claims: Claims one through seven assert violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code, and the eighth claim is for an alleged violation of California's Unfair Business Practices law. On January 20, 2009, Defendants filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), claiming that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") provided the basis for removal.
On February 13, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand, and said Motion came on for hearing by the court on April 27, 2009. Plaintiffs appeared by counsel Kathleen Dunham of Callahan & Blaine; Defendants appeared by counsel David Kadue of Seyfarth Shaw and William Hahessy. The Court, having considered the pleadings and declarations and having heard the arguments of counsel, rules as follows:
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is hereby GRANTED on the ground there is an absence of federal jurisdiction, as no federal employment benefit is identified in the complaint and Plaintiffs are admittedly not seeking ERISA benefits in this action.
Plaintiffs' request for recovery of their attorneys' fees and costs, under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), is hereby DENIED because it was not objectively unreasonable for Defendants to have attempted removal.
Accordingly, this action is hereby ordered REMANDED to the California Superior Court for the County of Fresno.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.