Le

Le v. Applied Biosystems

Good Law
886 F. Supp. 717·95 Daily Journal DAR 11647·1995 WL 298949·4 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 617·1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6596
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 27, 1995C-95-0660 DLJCalifornia1,766 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jensen, J.

ORDER OF REMAND

On April 26, 1995, the Court heard arguments on plaintiff’s motion for remand. Having considered the arguments of counsel, the applicable law, and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Joe Le’s Second Amended Complaint was filed on January 24, 1995. Defendants timely answered the complaint in San Mateo County Superior Court on February 24, 1995. Also on February 24, 1995, defendants removed the action to this Court, contending that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. preempted plaintiffs fourth cause of action.

B. Factual Background

After approximately seven years of employment with defendant Applied Biosystems, plaintiffs Joe Le’s employment was terminated. Plaintiff says that defendants, including plaintiffs supervisor, defendant Bruce Alleman, claimed that plaintiff had played a computer game during work hours, in contravention of purported company policy. Despite plaintiffs denial of this allegation, he was fired. He was terminated just two days after he informed his employer that his daughter required a liver transplant operation and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.