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.

Abel Inez Hernandez v. Kirkhill-Ta Corporation

January 31, 2013

ABEL INEZ HERNANDEZ
v.
KIRKHILL-TA CORPORATION, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The 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 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT [Docket No. 1]

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kirkhill-TA Corporation's ("Defendant") Notice of Removal, filed November 28, 2012. Plaintiff Abel Inez Hernandez ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on October 19, 2012. For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to state court.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was a full-time employee of Defendant beginning on February 26, 1998, until he was terminated on October 21, 2011. (Notice of Removal ("Notice") Ex. A ("Compl.") ¶ 8, ECF No. 1.) On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, asserting the following causes of action: (1) wrongful termination based upon breach of express and implied contract; (2) wrongful termination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (3) harassment and retaliation in violation of California Labor Code section 132a; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Compl. ¶ 1.)

On November 28, 2012, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal ("Notice") and removed this action from Los Angeles County Superior Court to the Central District of California, arguing that the action arises under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") and is thus within this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Notice ¶ 8.) Specifically, Defendant states that federal ...


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.