Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Campbell
Plaintiff
PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP
Defendant
Sarah Sobek
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

Pending on the February 5, 2007 law and motion calendar is a

motion to dismiss filed by defendant, Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP.

The court decides the matter based on the papers and without oral

argument.

Defendant seeks to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims on the basis

that there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

In their opposition, plaintiffs concede that jurisdiction is not

proper and seek leave to file an amended complaint which would

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 01/12/07 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

2

predicate jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. 1332 (d). In light of

plaintiffs’ concession that § 1332(a) is improper, defendant’s

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be granted. Given

that the court’s ruling on the issue of jurisdiction is

dispositive, the court need not address or rule on the other issues

raised in defendant’s motion at this time. Accordingly, the court

orders as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

is GRANTED. The remainder of defendant’s motion to

dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiffs are given leave to file a second amended

complaint within thirty (30)days from the issuance of

this order.

3. The hearing on the defendant’s motions to dismiss set

for February 5, 2007 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 12, 2007. 

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2