Plute

Plute v. Roadway Package System, Inc.

Good Law

141 F. Supp. 2d 1005·2001 WL 504247·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6063

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 18, 2001C 01-0353 SICalifornia3,475 words

Opinion

Illston, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO STRIKE, TO STAY AND TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; AND REMANDING ACTION TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On April 18, 2001, the Court heard argument on plaintiffs motion to remand and defendants’ motion to strike and motion to stay this action and compel arbitration. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion and DENIES defendants’ motions as moot, for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

This employment discrimination action involves plaintiff Albert Piute’s experience as a delivery driver for defendant FedEx Ground, Inc. (“FedEx”). Piute began working for FedEx in August 1994. Compl. ¶ 16. He claims that FedEx and two of his supervisors, Stacy Shoun (“Shoun”) and Mark Freel (“Freel”), subjected him to discriminatory comments and unequal terms of employment on account of his age. See Compl. ¶¶ 21-24. Piute is over the age of 40. Compl. ¶ 17. Beginning in 1995, Piute complained about and participated in an investigation of the alleged wrongful treatment. Compl. ¶ 19. He claims that defendants nonetheless continued their behavior 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.