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.

Alexis Merricks-Barragan v. Maidenform

October 31, 2011

ALEXIS MERRICKS-BARRAGAN
v.
MAIDENFORM, INC.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable S. James Otero, United States District Judge

Priority Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Victor Paul Cruz Courtroom Clerk COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: Not Present Not Present Court Reporter COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: Not Present

PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER REMANDING TO STATE COURT [Docket No. 1]

On September 26, 2011, Defendant Maidenform, Inc. ("Defendant") removed this action from Ventura County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal ("Notice"), Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff Alexis Merricks-Barragan ("Plaintiff") filed her Complaint in state court on August 4, 2011. (Notice Ex. A ("Compl.").) For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to Ventura County Superior Court.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Complaint sets forth the following allegations. On August 27, 2007, Defendant hired Plaintiff has a part-time supervisor at its Camarillo outlet store. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Four months later, Defendant promoted Plaintiff to assistant store manager. (Compl. ¶ 5.) As an assistant store manager, Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate. (Compl. ¶ 5.) In February 2010, Plaintiff learned that she was pregnant and informed Defendant of her pregnancy. (Compl. ¶ 6.) In late February, Plaintiff advised Defendant that she intended to take maternity leave in or around August 2010 for approximately two months. (Compl. ¶ 7.)

On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck and back during a work-related accident. (Compl. ¶ 8.) On March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant's insurer for worker's compensation benefits. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff's injuries left her with a physical disability. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Due to Plaintiff's disability, Plaintiff's physician advised her that she could only perform "light duty" work. (Compl. ¶ 9.) When Plaintiff returned to work, Defendant advised her that it could not accommodate her request for light duty work and directed her to leave work. (Compl. ¶ 10.) On June 6, 2010, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff indicating that her employment was terminated as of May 19, 2010. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Defendant's letter did not provide a reason for its termination decision. (Compl. ¶ 12.)

As a result of Plaintiff's termination, Plaintiff suffered financial loss, including: loss of salary and benefits, loss of future earnings potential and wages, and intangible loss of employment-related opportunities for growth in her field and damage to her professional reputation. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Additionally, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

The Complaint states the following causes of action: (1) failure to engage in interactive process; (2) failure to accommodate disability; (3) pregnancy discrimination; (5) retaliation; (6) California Family Rights Act retaliation based on California Government Code section 12945.2(l); (7) Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") interference pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(1); (8) FMLA retaliation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2); and (9) wrongful termination in violation of California public policy. (See generally Compl.) The Complaint does not state any numerical figure regarding the amount of damages sought. (Notice ¶ 10.) On September 26, 2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1441(a). (Notice 1.)

DISCUSSION

An action may be removed by the defendant to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 (2006). Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants where the amount in controversy ...


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.