Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01587/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01587-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv1587

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD J. TORMEY, on behalf of

himself, and all others similarly situated,

and on behalf of the general public,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv1587-LA (RBB)

ORDER AMENDING ORDER OF

REMAND

vs.

THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., a

Michigan Corporation; SAFEWAY, INC.,

a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1

through 100,

Defendants.

On September 5, 2007, the Court issued an order remanding this case to the

California state court from which it was removed. The Court now amends that order to clarify

the identities of the parties. The procedural history section of the order, from 1:19 to 2:3, is

hereby AMENDED to read as follows:

On June 29, 2007, Plaintiff Tormey filed this putative class action in

the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Defendants then on

August 10, 2007 removed the action to this Court, representing that the

provisions of the Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446, were met. Defendants

contended this Court had federal question jurisdiction because some of

Plaintiff’s claims were completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor

Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (“Section 301"). Defendants

also asked the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other related

state claims.

Because the Court’s jurisdiction was not clear, the Court on August

15, 2007 sua sponte issued an order to show cause requiring Defendants to

show cause why this action should not be remanded. On August 22, 2007,

Case 3:07-cv-01587-LAB-RBB Document 11 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv1587

Defendants responded and, on August 29, Plaintiff replied to Defendants’

response. Defendants’ response identifies federal question jurisdiction, and

supplemental jurisdiction, as the sole bases for this Court’s exercise of

jurisdiction over this action.

The Court’s order remains otherwise unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01587-LAB-RBB Document 11 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2