Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Theo Gallo v. At & T Mobility Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 3, 2012

THEO GALLO
v.
AT & T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge

REMAND/MADE JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez None Present

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): COURT ORDER

For the reasons addressed in the tentative ruling issued this day, as supplemented herein, the grants Plaintiff's motion to remand (but denies Plaintiff's request for attorney fees). The Defendant's motion to dismiss is deemed moot in light of the Court's remand decision.

At oral argument, Defendant attempted to liken this case to those cases the Court cited in its then-tentative ruling as fitting within the fraudulent joinder doctrine because they involved clear-cut and unavoidable statute of limitations problems. In Defendant's opposition brief on the motion to remand, it argued that Plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies within the statute of limitations with respect to the individual defendants. See Docket No. 28, at 5:18-7:13. However, as addressed in the tentative ruling, at this stage it is not clear that the exhaustion requirement applies to claims against the individual defendants or, if it does, how it applies. In addition, elsewhere in Defendant's opposition brief, it took the position that only two out of the three individual defendants would be protected by PAGA's statute of limitations. See id. at 18:12-14. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the fraudulent joinder doctrine does not provide a basis for this Court to ignore the citizenship of the individual defendants, meaning that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

The above-entitled action is remanded to the County of Los Angeles for the State of California, BC 479501.

Initials of Preparer JG

20120703

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.