Robles

Robles v. GILLIG LLC

Good Law

771 F. Supp. 2d 1181·2011 WL 445796·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14101

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 2011Case 10-3827 SCCalifornia1,909 words

Opinion

Conti, J.

ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is a Motion to Remand and Request for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Victor Robles (“Plaintiff’ or “Robles”). ECF No. 8. Defendant Gillig LLC (“Defendant” or “Gil-lig”) filed an Opposition, ECF No. 11, and Plaintiff submitted a Reply, ECF No. 15. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand and DENIES the Request for Attorneys’ Fees.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda alleging various state law causes of action, including disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq. ECF No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”) Ex. A (“Compl.”). Gillig manufactures transit buses. Id. ¶ 9. On or about April 27, 2009, Gillig hired Plaintiff to begin working in its manufacturing facility’s paint department. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff was a member of the Teamsters Local 853 Union, and his employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Gillig and Teamsters Local 853. Id. ¶ 12. Pursuant to the CBA, Plaintiff began work…

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.