Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00033/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00033-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JADE JUE, individually, and on behalf of all

other similarly situated persons, on behalf of

the People of the State of California, and on

behalf of the California Labor and Workforce

Development Agency, and ROES 1–35,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

and DOES 1–20,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-00033 WHA

ORDER VACATING

DISMISSAL AND 

REOPENING CASE

This action was removed from San Mateo County Superior Court on January 5, 2010. 

Seven days later, defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation filed a “Motion to Dismiss or,

Alternatively, for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Strike.” On February 11, approximately

forty minutes after Costco filed its reply brief for its motion, plaintiff Jade Jue filed a request for

voluntary dismissal of her action without prejudice (Dkt. Nos. 13, 14). Over a week later, after

the matter had been closed without a court order, Costco filed an opposition to plaintiff’s

dismissal (Dkt. No. 15). Both parties then filed additional briefs on the matter (Dkt. Nos. 17, 19). 

A hearing was held on February 25. Having considered the arguments made by both parties,

plaintiff’s dismissal must be VACATED and the case REOPENED. 

Case 3:10-cv-00033-WHA Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The reasons behind plaintiff’s dismissal request were as follows: In the opposition to

Costco’s motion, it was conceded that a portion of plaintiff Jue’s seating violation claim (one of

two claims brought by plaintiff) under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) was timebarred. The opposition, however, indicated an intention to amend the complaint to add an

additional plaintiff, Jorge Mejia, whose seating violation claim was not time-barred under PAGA. 

Immediately after defendant filed its reply brief, plaintiff abruptly filed a notice of voluntary

dismissal and filed a new action in state court with both Jue and Mejia as named plaintiffs. The

apparent reason for this move was that while counsel believed that federal jurisdiction over the

instant action was improper, he did not want to file a motion to remand the case back to state

court (Dkt. No. 17). Instead, he opted to dismiss the instant action and start anew.

Since defendant had already filed a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was not

authorized to voluntarily dismiss the instant action without a court order. FRCP 41(a)(2). Since

no court order approved the dismissal, the matter was improperly closed. Now that the matter has

been reopened, plaintiff shall select one of the following three options to proceed: 

Option One: Counsel may amend the complaint to add Mejia as a named plaintiff. Given

that the newly filed state action would have been removed to federal court anyway, there is no

reason to deny the addition of Mejia in the instant action. This amendment would be without

prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion to remand. If this option is selected, however, the pending

and fully briefed motion filed by Costco will be ruled on immediately as to all Rule 12 challenges

raised in the motion (the sole issue on which Costco moved for summary judgment was whether

plaintiff Jue was time-barred from bringing her PAGA claim). Once the pending motion is

resolved, the Court will provide instructions regarding the addition of Mejia to the complaint.

Option Two: Plaintiff may file a motion to remand this action back to state court. If this

option is chosen, the pending motion filed by Costco will be put on hold until the remand motion

is resolved.

Option Three: Counsel for plaintiff, Cary Kletter, admitted that his dismissal request was

inexcusably late (Dkt. No. 17). Had the request been tendered sooner, it is likely that unnecessary

expenses would not have been incurred. As such, the undersigned will grant plaintiff’s dismissal

Case 3:10-cv-00033-WHA Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

request only if plaintiff’s counsel (to be clear, counsel may not bill his client for this amount)

pays opposing counsel $1,000 in attorney’s fees to compensate them for expenses incurred. With

respect to this third option, the undersigned also emphasizes that this case is still in its early

stages and no discovery has occurred. In other words, Costco would only suffer minimal

prejudice if the requested dismissal was granted.

Plaintiff’s counsel has until NOON ON THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010, to notify the Court of

his selection. If the first option is selected, the Court will resolve the pending motion without oral

argument and issue a ruling shortly thereafter. If the second option is selected, counsel’s motion

to remand will be due on MARCH 11, 2010, to be heard on the normal 35-day motion calendar. If

the third option is selected, counsel must file a sworn declaration with his March 4 filing

indicating that $1,000 in attorney’s fees have been paid to opposing counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00033-WHA Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3