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
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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]
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mainline Information Systems, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Notice of Removal ("Notice"), filed on September 8, 2011. Plaintiff Danielle Solomon ("Plaintiff") filed her Complaint ("Complaint") in Los Angeles Superior Court on June 17, 2011. For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to state court.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an individual residing in California. (Notice Ex. A ("Complaint") 19, ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, a Florida corporation. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendant's principal place of business is in Tallahassee, Florida. (Decl. of Joyce Chastain in Supp. of Notice ("Chastain Decl.") ¶ 2 , ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed the instant action in Los Angeles Superior Court on June 17, 2011. The Complaint alleges the following facts. Defendant employed Plaintiff as a purchasing agent from 1992 through April 4, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff worked 40 hours per week with her work day commencing at 7:00 am and concluding at 4:00 pm. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Shortly before Plaintiff's termination, Defendant modified Plaintiff's schedule such that Plaintiff worked 40 hours per week with her work day commencing at 8:30 am and concluding at 5:30 pm. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Because her physician recommended she attend a yoga class to alleviate stress, Plaintiff requested to keep her original hours two days per week. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff claims Defendant was unhappy with her request and as a result terminated her employment. (Compl. ¶ 6.) As of the date of her termination, Plaintiff earned $33.17 per hour, approximately $1,326.80 per week. (Compl. ¶ 1.)
Plaintiff claims her termination was in violation of California law. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action under California state law: (1) failure to pay wages earned upon separation; (2) waiting time penalties; (3) failure to provide meal breaks; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to pay overtime compensation; (6) failure to provide an accurate itemized statement of earnings each pay period; (7) disability discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (8) wrongful discharge under FEHA; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See generally Compl.)
Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 ...