Avila

Avila v. Rue 21, Inc.

Good Law

United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 20201:19-cv-01040California8,724 words

Opinion

15 This is a wage and hour putative class action first initiated by Plaintiff Maria Avila (“Plaintiff”)

16 in the Tulare Superior Court. After Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”)

17 for herself, as well as on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf

18 of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”),

19 Defendant Rue21, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the case to this Court pursuant to the Class Action

20 Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), on July 30, 2019. ECF No. 1. “A motion to remand is the

21 proper procedure for challenging removal.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241,

22 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Seeking to challenge the removal, Plaintiff timely brought the instant Motion to

23 Remand on August 29, 2019, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). ECF No. 4. In particular, Plaintiff

24 contends that the removal was untimely and that Defendant has failed to meet its burden of showing by a

25 Id. at i. Defendant filed an Opposition on September 16, and Plaintiff replied on September 23. ECF

Nos. 5-6.

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