Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00910/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00910-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-06-00910 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 3/31/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARY BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STAR ONE CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1

THROUGH 20,

Defendants.

No. C-06-00910 RMW

ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS &

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

[Re Docket No. 10]

Plaintiff Mary Bonilla initially filed this action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. 

The enumerated causes of action are all based on California law, though the complaint does refer to

"the federal FMLA." Defendant Star One Credit Union removed the case, claiming that it "is one

which may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section

1441(b) in that it arises under federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C.A. 2601 et.

seq." Notice of Removal ¶ 1. Defendant then moved to dismiss; that motion is currently set for

hearing on April 7, 2006. Plaintiff subsequently moved to remand, calendaring her motion for April

21, 2006—a date on which this court is unavailable. Plaintiff then filed an ex parte application to

continue the hearing on the motion to dismiss to April 21, 2006.

Case 5:06-cv-00910-RMW Document 15 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-06-00910 RMW

JAH 2

Although plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of the Civil Local Rules—notably

Civil L.R. 6-3(a)(2)—judicial economy dictates that this court rule on plaintiff's motion to remand

before it decides defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion to remand and defendant's motion

to dismiss are therefore set for hearing at 9 a.m. on April 28, 2006.

DATED: 3/30/06 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00910-RMW Document 15 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-06-00910 RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Stanley G. Hilton FROG727@AOL.COM

Counsel for Defendants:

Ann Kathleen Smith aks@aalrr.com 

Paul S. Fleck

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 3/31/06 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00910-RMW Document 15 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3