Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04630/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04630-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 06/21/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MARION DEAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ANN MILLER RAVEL, et al, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-4630 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND 

AND CONSOLIDATED MATTER 

____________________________________/ 

This action is a consolidation of two lawsuits originally filed in Santa Clara Superior Court. 

In the first, the County of Santa Clara sought an injunction against its employee Marian Dean to 

prevent what the County alleged was a threat of workplace violence. In the second action, Dean 

brought claims against the County and various individual defendants arising out of the employment 

relationship. In the superior court, the parties entered into a stipulation for an order that would, 

among other things, consolidate the two cases. Pursuant to that stipulation, the court ordered that 

two cases be “consolidated for all purposes and only one judgment shall be made herein.” 

At the time of the consolidation, Dean had not yet formally served defendants with her 

complaint, although counsel for the County was in possession of a copy. Shortly after Dean’s 

Case 3:09-cv-04630-RS Document 50 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 2
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

complaint was actually served, defendants filed a notice of removal to this Court. Dean now moves 

for remand, contending that defendants “waived” the right to remove by virtue of stipulating to 

consolidate the two matters. Defendants oppose, arguing that nothing in the stipulation to 

consolidate reflects a “clear and unequivocal” waiver of their right to remove. Pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument. 

The motion to remand is granted. Whether or not defendants’ conduct in stipulating to 

consolidate the two cases is appropriately characterized as a waiver, the indisputable fact is that this 

consolidated action includes a matter in which the County is the plaintiff. As such, there simply is 

no basis for removal jurisdiction over the consolidated case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a) (providing 

for removal only by defendants). This matter is hereby remanded to Santa Clara Superior Court. 

Dated: 06/21/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-04630-RS Document 50 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2