From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Petsmart, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 11, 2013
1:12-CV-02035-BAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2013)

Opinion

MICHELLE B. HEVERLY, Bar No. 178660 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., San Francisco, CA. Attorneys for Defendant PETSMART, INC.

Craig J. Ackermann, Bar No. 229832 ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C., Los Angeles, CA.

Michael Malk, Esq., Bar No. 222366 MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC, Los Angeles, California.

Walter Haines, Esq., Bar No. 71075 UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C., Long Beach, CA. Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHERYL MILLER, KENNETH BARNER, STEPHANIE TURANO AND CRISTINA BARAJAS


JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

This stipulation is entered into between Plaintiffs CHERYL MILLER, KENNETH BARNER, STEPHANIE TURANO AND CRISTINA BARAJAS ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant PETSMART, INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, as follows:

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint, alleging that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $5,000,000;

WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, Defendant filed its Answer to the Class Action Complaint; WHEREAS, the parties have engaged in an informal exchange of documents, depositions and discussions regarding the facts of the case. Based on the information exchanged, the parties now agree that this Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act because the actual amount in controversy in this case is less than $5,000,000.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:

1. The amount in controversy is less than $5,000,000;

2. This case shall be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction in this Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Miller v. Petsmart, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 11, 2013
1:12-CV-02035-BAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2013)
Case details for

Miller v. Petsmart, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CHERYL MILLER, KENNETH BARNER, STEPHANIE TURANO AND CRISTINA BARAJAS…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 11, 2013

Citations

1:12-CV-02035-BAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2013)