From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valle v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 15, 2011
Case No.: C 11-5168 SC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

Opinion

Case No.: C 11-5168 SC

11-15-2011

CATHERINE JANE VALLE and DON PEROLINO CRISTOBAL, as the Representatives of the State of California, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HIW, INC.; a Washington Corporation, Defendant.

BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Kyle Nordrehaug Attorneys for Plaintiffs HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP Jason J. Kim Attorneys for Defendant LOWE'S HIW, INC.


BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
Norman B. Blumenthal
Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Aparajit Bhowmik
Piya Mukherjee
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

STIPULATION TO DISMISS THE ACTION

Judge: Hon. Samuel ContiCourt No.:

1 - 17th Floor

Complaint Filed: September 8, 2011

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs Catherine Jane Valle and Don Perolino Cristobal ("Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel of record and Lowe's HIW, Inc. ("Lowe's") by and through its counsel of record, as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed this action in San Mateo County Superior Court on September 8, 2011;

WHEREAS, Defendant removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 24, 2011 [Doc. No. 1], and filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 31, 2011 [Doc. No. 8];

WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy, the parties wish to avoid any waste of Court resources on the Motion to Dismiss.

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and hereby request that:

1. The parties agree that Plaintiffs' demand for arbitration in AAA Case No. 73 460 00332 11 can be amended forthwith by Plaintiffs to allege a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim based upon the Labor Code violations alleged in the current arbitration demand;

2. The parties' agreement to the amendment of the demand is not and will not be construed as an admission by either party that the PAGA claim is permitted or prohibited by the arbitration agreement, and the parties agree that the arbitrator shall not consider this stipulation or the parties' agreement to the amendment of the demand when determining the proper scope of the arbitration;

3. The parties agree that their respective arguments and positions concerning arbitrability and the arbitration clause construction, including arguments and positions directed to the scope of the arbitration (which, in turn, shall be determined by the arbitrator per the terms of this Court's August 22, 2011 order in Related Case No. 11-1489 SC), are hereby preserved;

4. The instant action, Case No CV 11-5168, will be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice to allow the PAGA claim to be alleged in the arbitration demand, with each side to bear its own fees and costs with respect to Case No CV 11-5168.

BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG &

BHOWMIK

Kyle Nordrehaug

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

Jason J. Kim

Attorneys for Defendant

LOWE'S HIW, INC.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
Norman B. Blumenthal
Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Aparajit Bhowmik
Piya Mukherjee
Attorneys for Plaintiffs CATHERINE JANE VALLE and DON PEROLINO CRISTOBAL, as the Representatives of the State of California, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HIW, INC.; a Washington Corporation, Defendant. Case No.: C 11-5168 SC

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION

Judge: Hon. Samuel Conti

Court No.: 1 - 17th Floor

Complaint Filed: September 8, 2011

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the parties' Stipulation for Dismissal, good cause appearing, hereby orders as follows:

1. The above entitled action is dismissed without prejudice, with each side to bear their own fees and costs with respect to Case No CV 11-5168.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Valle v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 15, 2011
Case No.: C 11-5168 SC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Valle v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CATHERINE JANE VALLE and DON PEROLINO CRISTOBAL, as the Representatives of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

Case No.: C 11-5168 SC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)