Garza

Garza v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc.

Good Law
178 F. Supp. 3d 906·2016 WL 1298390·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46087
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 4, 2016Case No. 15-cv-02661-RMWCalifornia5,419 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Whyte, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 37,

Plaintiff Daniel Garza filed a class action complaint in Monterey County Superior Court on April 16, 2015, alleging that defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to pay premium wages for unprovided meal and rest periods, failed to pay at least minimum wages for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to reimburse for all necessary business expenses, and failed to provide accurate written wage statements. Dkt. No. 1-1. On June 12, 2015, defendants Brinder-son L.P., Inc. and Brinderson Constructors, Inc. removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff now moves to remand. Dkt. No. 37. Brinderson L.P. opposes the motion to remand and also moves to consolidate this action with Daniel Garza v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc., Brinderson L.P, Brinderson L.P., Inc. and Chevron U.S.A., Inc., N.D. Cal., Case No. 15-cv-05742-HRL. Dkt. Nos. 40, 42. The court grants plaintiffs motion to remand because Brin-derson has not established that the parties are diverse. Furthermore, even if Brinder-son had established diversity jurisdiction,…

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.