Opinion
Case No. 11-CV-03499-MMC
10-03-2011
MICHAEL ALAKOZAI and STEVEN PITTS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORP., Defendant.
Edward J. Wynne (SBN 165819) WYNNE LAW FIRM David S. Markun (SBN 108067) Jeffrey K. Compton (SBN 142969) MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Alakozai and Steven Pitts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Edward J. Wynne (SBN 165819)
WYNNE LAW FIRM
David S. Markun (SBN 108067)
Jeffrey K. Compton (SBN 142969)
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Alakozai and
Steven Pitts, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated
[CLASS ACTION]
STIPULATION AND [PROPODED]
ORDER FOR FILING OF SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs MICHAEL ALAKOZAI and STEVEN PITTS ("Plaintiffs") filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORP. ("Defendant") on August 3, 2011.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs alleged federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs alleged diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendant and alleged that there are more than 100 persons covered by this action.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs did not allege that the amount in controversy was over $5,000,000.
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Extending Time for Defendant To Respond To Complaint ("Order to Show Cause").
WHEREAS, the Order To Show Cause found that Plaintiffs had not alleged an amount in controversy to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, ordered Plaintiff to respond by September 22, 2011, and extended the time for Defendant to respond to the First Amended Complaint to October 13, 2011.
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agreed that Plaintiffs should be permitted to plead an amount in controversy to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and file a Second Amended Complaint a copy of which is marked and attached hereto.
WHEREAS, the parties agree to the following:
STIPULATION
1. Plaintiffs are permitted to amend the Complaint to plead an amount in controversy to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
2. The Court's execution of this proposed Order will constitute service of process of the [proposed] Second Amended Complaint on Defendant.
DATED: September 22, 2011
WYNNE LAW FIRM
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP
By: Edward J. Wynne
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Alakozai and Steven Pitts, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
By: Daryl S. Landy
Attorneys for Defendant
Chase Investment Services Corp.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Court having read and considered the parties' Stipulation, makes the following Order:
1. Plaintiffs are permitted to amend the Complaint to plead an amount in controversy
to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately plead(pled) an amount in controversy to satisfy federal diversity jurisdiction.
2. The [proposed] Second Amended Complaint attached hereto shall be filed and imaged as a separate document by the Clerk of the Court.(by plaintiffs no later than October 7, 2011.)
3. Tho Court's exeeution of this proposed Order will constitute service of proeess of the Second Amended Complaint on Defendant. Defendant's response to the First Amended Complaint due October 13, 2011 is hereby vacated.
4. The Order to Show Cause is hereby discharged.
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge