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.

Title: Yolanda Negrete v. Meadowbrook Meat Company

January 25, 2012

TITLE: YOLANDA NEGRETE
v.
MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Julie Barrera Courtroom Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD DEFENDANTS AND REMAND TO STATE COURT

Before the Court is a Motion For Leave to Amend and Remand ("Motion") brought by Plaintiffs Yolanda Negrete ("Plaintiff"). (Dkt. 8). The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the motion and related*fn1 and for the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion. Accordingly, the hearing set for January 30, 2012, is removed from the Court's calendar.

I. Background

1. Defendant's Timely Removal of Plaintiffs' Original Complaint

On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed her original Complaint in Superior Court against only one named Defendant, Meadowbrook Meat Company ("Meadowbrook"), and several Does. See Notice of Removal Ex. C (Dkt. 1) at 18. The parties do not dispute that Defendants timely removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332.

3. Plaintiffs' Amendment And Motion For Remand

On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present Motion For Leave to Amend and Remand ("Motion"). See Mot. (Dkt. 8). Attached to this Motion was a Proposed First Amended See id. at Ex. A.

A. Allegations Destroying Diversity Jurisdiction

The Proposed First Amended Complaint names Kevin O'Grady ("O'Grady") and Michael Eatinger ("Eatinger") as Defendants and alleges that both are residents of California. See id. at ¶¶ 4, 5. Because O'Grady and Eatinger are alleged to be residents of California, Plaintiff's Motion requests that the case be remanded to state court after amendment is granted, as there will no longer be diversity between each of the Plaintiffs and each of the Defendants. See Mot. (Dkt. 8) at 1.

B. Allegations that Ascribe Acts to Management Generally

Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendant Meadowbrook beginning in 1997. at ¶ 10. In 2005, Plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes. Id. at ¶ 11. Her husband also suffered a

Id. at ¶ 12. "Due to [both his and her medical conditions], Plaintiff has filed claims for leave under the California Family Rights Act ("CMLA") and Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") for the past four (4) years." Id. Sometime in the past four years, Plaintiff was ordered to train a co-worker

Id. at ¶ 13. In addition, "management began asking" another employee to assume her duties and "withholding information regarding her duties." Id.

Defendant Meadowbrook told Plaintiff that she had until January 22, 2010, to file her medical certification to renew her FMLA claim for leave, but then fired her one week before this

Id. at ¶ 20. "[A]t least one worker has reported to Plaintiff that the reason she was terminated was because of her use of the FMLA and CFRA leave." Id. at ¶ 21.

In addition, Plaintiff alleges that on "multiple occasions . . . [Plaintiff] was subject to sexual harassment by being called 'Lucy' and questioned about her monogamous relationship with her husband." Also "Plaintiff learned that other women employees in her job level were having sexual relationships with management." See id. at ¶¶ 50, 51.

B. Allegations that Specifically Name O'Grady

O'Grady was an employee of Defendant Meadowbrook and "Plaintiff's supervisor." See at ¶ 4. The Proposed First Amended Complaint brings a claim under California Government Code § 12940 against O'Grady. See id. at ¶ 48.

O'Grady was "continually upset with Plaintiff for taking too much time off to stay with Id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiff "approached [another employee] and O'GRADY multiple times . . . and revealed she knew they wanted to get rid of her and promote [the person she was ordered to train]." at ¶ 17.

Plaintiff also alleges that "employees in her job level were having sexual relationships with management, including O'Grady." See id. at ¶ 51.

C. Allegations that Specifically Name Eatinger

Plaintiff alleges that Eatinger was an employee of Defendant Meadowbrook and "Plaintiff's supervisor." See id. at ¶ 5. The Proposed First Amended Complaint brings a claim under California Government Code § 12940 against Eatinger. See id. at ¶ 59. Plaintiff alleges that Eatinger "harassed Plaintiff by stressing the importance of 'being there' and 'being dependable' when he ...


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.