Conroy

Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.

Good Law

325 F. Supp. 2d 1049·2004 WL 1638044·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14106

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 8, 2004C04-1520 SBACalifornia3,298 words

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

This matter comes before the Court on two motions: (1) the motion of Kathleen Conroy (“Plaintiff’) to remand the proceedings to state court [Docket No. 11]; and (2) the motion of Fresh Del Monte Produce, et al., (“Defendants”) to stay Plaintiffs motion pending transfer to the multi-district litigation panel [Docket No. 16]. Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Stay and GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Remand.

BACKGROUND

A. The Dispute

The following factual summary is derived from the allegations of Plaintiffs complaint (the “Complaint”), which are taken as true solely for purposes of resolving the motions. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.1995).

Defendants, in conjunction with the Maui Pineapple Company (“Maui”) developed two pineapple hybrids: 73-114 and 73-50. (Comply 40.) These genetically engineered pineapples were higher in sugar and vitamin C content, enjoyed higher…

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.