The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen
Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN
Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not present Not present
Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (In Chambers)
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Miguel Arriola's Motion for Order Remanding Case to State Court ("Motion"; docket no. 5), filed on November 19, 2010. The Court has considered the briefs and supporting documents filed in this matter and deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for January 24, 2011, is removed from the Court's calendar. For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion and remands the action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
Plaintiff originally filed suit in California Superior Court on September 17, 2010. Plaintiff's suit, a putative class action, seeks recovery for violations of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide employees, including Plaintiff, with a weekly allowance to maintain uniforms Defendants required them to wear, in violation of Labor Code section 2802 and applicable regulations. (Pl.'s Compl. (Notice of Removal Ex. A) ¶ 2.) Additionally, according to Plaintiff, Defendants pays wages through an ADP Visa Payroll Card, and ADP charges various fees through deductions from the balance "loaded" onto the cards, resulting in violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, and 212. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a), which requires employers to provide its employees with itemized wage statements. (Id. at ¶ 16.) On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiff brought seven claims, six of these based on the Labor Code violations, and the seventh based on California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
On October 21, 2010, Defendants removed the action to this Court. Defendants asserted federal jurisdiction exists over this action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), diversity jurisdiction, and based on § 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion, asserting that Defendants had failed to establish diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a) or § 1332(d). On January 3, 2011, Defendants filed an Opposition (docket no. 7) supported by three declarations (docket nos. 8--10)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA