SEAN MANSFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff,
CAMBRIDGE REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., an Oregon corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488, ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754, GAINES & GAINES, APLC, Woodland Hills, CA, ttorneys for Plaintiff Sean Mansfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public
JOHN L. BARBER, ESQ. SBN 160317, NATALJA M. FULTON, ESQ. SBN 254858, MATTHEW W. DIETZ, ESQ. SBN 274665, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
1. Plaintiff Sean Mansfield ("Plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Butte (the "State Court") on or about August 8, 2013 against Defendant Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's complaint alleged causes of action for: (1) Failure To Pay Overtime Wages (FLSA 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207); (2) Failure To Pay Wages (Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, IWC Wage Order 5-2001); (3) Knowing And Intentional Failure To Comply With Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions (Labor Code § 226(a), (e)); (4) Failure To Timely Pay Wages Due At Termination (Labor Code §§ 201-203); and (5) Violation Of Business And Professions Code § 17200).
2. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which added a sixth cause of action for Penalties Pursuant To Labor Code § 2699(f) For Violations Of Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204, 226(A), 510 And 1194 And Labor Code § 2699(a) For Violations Of Labor Code §§ 210 And 226.3.
3. On August 13, 2013, Plaintiff served the First Amended Complaint on Defendant.
4. On September 13, 2013, Defendant removed this matter to this Court based on Federal Question jurisdiction.
5. Defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has agreed to allow Defendant up to and including September 30, 2013 to file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint.
6. Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to remove the action within 30 days of service. Specifically, Defendant should have removed the action on or before September 12, 2013.
7. The parties have met and conferred and agree to remand this matter back to the State Court.
8. The parties have further met and conferred and agree that each party will bear its own costs and fees with regard to all efforts of removal to this Court as well as remand back to the State Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree that the action shall immediately be remanded to the Superior ...