Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03661/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03661-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

VALERIE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE HERTZ CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 14-03661 JSW

ORDER CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

AND GRANTING IN PART

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO

DISMISS

The Court has received Plaintiff’s motion for an order to shorten time, relating to her

motion to dismiss this case without prejudice. The Court GRANTS that motion in part. The

Court will resolve the motion on the papers. The hearing scheduled for August 7, 2015 is

VACATED. Defendants shall file a response to the motion by June 24, 2015, and Plaintiff may

file a reply by July 1, 2015.

The Court FURTHER ORDERS Defendants to address the following question in their

opposition, and Plaintiff may respond in her reply: 

In the correspondence attached to the motion to shorten time, Defendants requested that

Plaintiff stipulate to filing any subsequent lawsuit in federal court “if a jurisdictional basis exists

for doing so.” (Docket No. 38-1, Declaration of Amy Wooten, ¶ 3; Docket No. 38-3, Exhibit B

to Wooten Declaration.) If Plaintiff filed a new lawsuit in state court, and there was a

jurisdictional basis for doing so, why could Defendants could not simply remove such a case?

Case 4:14-cv-03661-JSW Document 40 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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 parties have requested that the Court continue the case management conference

pending resolution of the motion. That request is GRANTED, and the Court CONTINUES the

case management conference to August 7, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. If the Court denies Plaintiff’s

motion, the parties shall file an updated case management statement by no later than July 31,

2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-03661-JSW Document 40 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 2