1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. DUCKWORTH v. KENT'S MEATS & GROCERIES, INC.
 

DUCKWORTH v. KENT'S MEATS & GROCERIES, INC.

Case No. 2:15-CV-00292-TLN-CMK.

THERESA DUCKWORTH, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, v. KENT'S MEATS & GROCERIES, INC., a California corporation; KENT W. PFRIMMER, an individual; JERRY WOBBE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant(s).

United States District Court, E.D. California-Sacramento Division.

April 9, 2015.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David Spivak , Caroline Tahmassian , THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM, Beverly Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, THERESA DUCKWORTH.

Dennis C. Huie , Aaron M. Scolari , ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants Kent's Meats & Groceries, Inc. and Kent W. Pfrimmer.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 10 THROUGH 16 AND WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

WHEREAS, on February 4, 2015, THERESA DUCKWORTH ("Plaintiff") commenced this individual and class action against KENT'S MEATS & GROCERIES, INC. and KENT W. PFRIMMER ("Defendants") in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California-Sacramento Division. In addition to her individual sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims based on violations of the public policy, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Plaintiff alleged that Defendants are liable to her and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt, hourly employees in California for unpaid wages and other related relief based on Defendants' alleged failures to (1) provide all rest breaks, (2) provide all meal periods, (3) fairly compete, (4) indemnify for all expenses, (5) provide accurate wage statements, and (6) timely pay final wages upon termination of employment.

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants with the lawsuit.

WHEREAS, on March 25, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's wage and hour class claims (Claims for Relief 10 through 16). Defendants argued that the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state wage and hour claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

WHEREAS, Plaintiff does not concede to Defendants' arguments for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the disputed claims.

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

A. Plaintiff will file an amended complaint (attached as Exhibit A to this Stipulation) that omits Claims for Relief 10 through 16.

B. Plaintiff will file the dismissed claims in the Superior Court of California, County of Shasta.

C. Any tolling of Plaintiff's statute of limitations for the dismissed claims is governed by federal and/or state law.

D. Immediately after filing of this stipulation and before April 9, 2015, Defendants will withdraw their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases