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.

Milling v. C.R. England, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 7, 2013

CORNELIUS MILLING, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq., Plaintiff,
v.
C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

KENNETH S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 049045 DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488 ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754 GAINES & GAINES, APLC, Woodland Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff CORNELIUS MILLING

DREW R. HANSEN, ESQ. SBN 218382 BENJAMIN P. BRODERICK, ESQ. SBN 212124 THEODORA ORINGHER PC Costa Mesa, California, Attorneys for Defendant C.R. ENGLAND, INC.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

RECITALS

1. Plaintiff Cornelius Milling ("Plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Fresno (the "State Court") on or about April 5, 2013 against Defendant C.R. England, Inc. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's complaint alleged one cause of action for penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(f) for violations of Labor Code §§ 212, 221, and 226(a) and Labor Code § 2699(a) for violations of Labor Code §§ 225.5 and 226.3.

2. On May 7, 2013, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff's complaint in state court.

3. On May 8, 2013, Defendant removed this matter to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.

4. Late in the afternoon on October 30, 2013, Plaintiff informed Defendant for the very first time that it believes jurisdiction is not proper in this Court in light of a recent Ninth Circuit ruling, Urbino v. Orkin Services of California, Inc., 726 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. August 13, 2013).

5. The parties have since met and conferred and now agree that the action should be remanded back to the State Court in light of the Urbino decision.[1]

6. Given that the Parties have agreed that remand is warranted at this time, they respectfully request that the Court take the Scheduling Conference set for November 12, 2013 off calendar.

STIPULATION

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 Court for the State of California, County of Fresno.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

For good cause showing, IT IS ORDERED that this action shall immediately be remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Fresno. The clerk shall take steps to remand this action to the Fresno County Superior Court. This Court VACATES all pending matters and dates set before this Court. This Court will take no further action regarding this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.