Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06440/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06440-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WINIFRED L. GIBSON-JONES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BERKEL & COMPANY

CONTRACTORS, INC., et al.

 Defendants.

____________________________/

No. C 07-6440 WDB

INTERIM ORDER FOLLOWING

FEBRUARY 27, 2008, HEARING ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS 

On February 27, 2008, the parties appeared before the undersigned for a hearing

on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. As noted in the Court’s Order of February 15, 2008,

also before the Court is whether the case should be remanded to the California Superior

Court. Having considered the parties’ briefs and their arguments during the hearing, the

Court issues the following INTERIM ORDERS: 

(1) At the outset of the hearing Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that Plaintiff had

decided to dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action from her Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint

is hereby amended to dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action. 

(2) By no later than Tuesday, March 11, 2008, Plaintiff must electronically

file a writing in which Plaintiff, through her counsel, indicates how she would like to

proceed with respect to (a) Defendant Zuckerman; (b) Defendant Braverman-Smith; and

(c) Defendant Braverman Mediation and Consulting (“BMC”). 

Case 4:07-cv-06440-PJH Document 27 Filed 02/28/08 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

(3) With respect only to Defendant BMC, Plaintiff’s counsel will electronically

file a writing by Friday, February 29, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., indicating whether a

contention that BMC was in existence, as a legally cognizable entity, during the period

of alleged wrongful conduct by Ms. Braverman has evidentiary support or will likely

have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

discovery. 

(4) Should Plaintiff file a writing in which she elects to dismiss any or all of the

three Defendants – Zuckerman, Braverman-Smith, or BMC – Plaintiff’s counsel must at

the same time amend the Complaint to reflect the dismissal of the party or parties Plaintiff

has decided to dismiss. Any party or parties that Plaintiff elects to dismiss will not be

considered by the undersigned in a Report and Recommendation that addresses whether

there exists complete diversity of citizenship between the parties sufficient to confer

subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. 

(5) With respect only to Defendant Braverman-Smith, if Plaintiff elects not to

dismiss Defendant Braverman-Smith, Plaintiff’s counsel must amend the Complaint by

no later than March 11, 2008, to set forth more clearly Plaintiff’s theories of liability

under California Law against Braverman-Smith, and to make factual allegations

supporting any such causes of action.

(6) With respect to allegations against any of the Defendants, the Court

admonishes Plaintiff’s counsel to attend carefully to her duties under Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Soon after receiving Plaintiff’s submissions on March 11, 2008, a law clerk in the

chambers of the undersigned will contact the parties to schedule a telephone conference

to discuss how the case will proceed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2008

 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-06440-PJH Document 27 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2