Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00583-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

27795071v.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

QUENTIN COSTEIU; individually, and

on behalf of other members of the 

general public similarly situated and on 

behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant 

to the Private Attorneys General Act; 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

INTERTEK TESTING SERVICES NA, 

INC., an unknown business entity; 

INTERTEK USA, INC., an unknown 

business entity; and DOES 1 through 

100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:16-CV-00583-JAM-AC

Honorable John A. Mendez 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STRIKE AS MOOT 

Case 2:16-cv-00583-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 06/24/16 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

1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

27795071v.1 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Quentin Costeiu’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand came on for 

hearing before this Court on June 14, 2016, at approximately 1:30 p.m., in 

Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. Jill J. Parker of Lawyers for Justice, PC appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. 

Coby M. Turner of Seyfarth Shaw LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants Intertek 

Testing Services NA, Inc. and Intertek USA, Inc. (“Defendants”). 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s moving papers, Defendants’ opposition, 

and Plaintiff’s reply brief in connection with the motion. The Court has also 

considered oral argument and all evidence presented at the hearing. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is hereby GRANTED for the reasons set forth 

in the record. Although Defendants’ allegations concerning the diversity of 

citizenship are sufficient, Defendants have not established by a preponderance of 

the evidence at this stage that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as 

required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Should subsequent 

discovery provide evidence that the amount in controversy is over $5 million, 

Defendants may re-remove the action to federal court at that time. 

Accordingly, this action is hereby remanded to the Sacramento Superior 

Court. Because the case is remanded, the Court does not reach the merits of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, and denies it as moot. 

Defendants are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $100 for exceeding 

the fifteen (15) page limit set forth in the Court’s Order re Filing Requirements for 

Cases Assigned to Judge Mendez (Dkt. No. 2-2) within five (5) days. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 6/24/2016 /s/ John A. Mendez__________ 

Hon. John A. Mendez 

 Judge of the U.S. District Court 

Case 2:16-cv-00583-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 06/24/16 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

2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

27795071v.1 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

Dated: June 23, 2016 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 

 By: /s/ Jill J. Parker 

Jill J. Parker 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: June 23, 2016 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

 By: /s/ Coby M. Turner 

 (as authorized on June 23, 2016) 

Coby M. Turner 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:16-cv-00583-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 3