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.

Blanca Lidia Bonilla, On Behalf of v. Fresh Express Incorporated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


October 15, 2012

BLANCA LIDIA BONILLA, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, ASSIGNED TO THE HON. EDWARD J. DAVILA PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRESH EXPRESS INCORPORATED, A COMPLAINT
DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-50,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge Edward J. Davila

Filed: 2/17/2012 27

Trial Date: None Set inclusive, and between Plaintiff BLANCA LIDIA BONILLA and Defendant FRESH EXPRESS

1) On or about July 20, 2012, approximately five months after the filing of the instant action in federal court, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that Defendant is in fact a California 6 entity, a corporation with its principle place of business in Salinas, California. For purposes of 7 this stipulation, Plaintiff does not dispute that representation. The parties therefore agree that 8 diversity jurisdiction does not exist under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, and no other basis for federal 9 jurisdiction has been alleged. As a result, the proper venue for Plaintiff's claims lies in the 10

2) Plaintiff will file an action in state court within 30 days of this Court's order dismissing this action in accordance with this stipulation; 13 in its entirety as to all claims and all parties; 15 tolling of claims from the date this action was filed (February 17, 2012) until the date Plaintiff 17 files in state court, as long as Plaintiff files the state court action within 30 days of the dismissal 18 of this case. That is, the claims made in this federal court action by Plaintiff on her behalf and on 19 behalf of others similarly situated, when alleged in the state court action to be filed by Plaintiff 20 individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, will be for claims arising up until February 21

17, 2012 and ongoing until resolution, and dating back to the times prior to that as allowed by the 22 applicable statutes of limitations depending on the bases of the various claims made. By this 23 agreement Defendant does not admit that any of the claims made by Plaintiff have merit or that 24 they were timely made when this action was filed on February 17, 2012. Defendant only agrees 25 to treat the state court action to be filed as though it had been filed on February 17, 2012. 26

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it is hereby stipulated by

INCORPORATED, through their attorneys of record, as follows: 4

California Superior Court; 11

3) The parties request that the above-captioned action be dismissed without prejudice

4) The parties agree that in the state court action to be filed by Plaintiff there will be a Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), Daniel P. Hunt attests that concurrence in the filing of

2 this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this document. 3 4

THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC Dated: October 11, 2012 /s/ Daniel P. Hunt 7 By: Daniel P. Hunt Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class 8 9 LITTLER MENDELSON 10 11 12 Dated: October 11, 2012 /s/ Michelle B. Heverly By: Michelle B. Heverly 13 Attorneys for Defendant FRESH EXPRESS INC.

IT IS SO ORDERED

The Clerk shall close this file.

20121015

© 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.