Robinson v. VSP Labs, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01087
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. (SBN 295045) 2 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, California 90067 3 Tel: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff Temeka Robinson 5 6 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 TAMEKA ROBINSON, an individual, Case No. 2:22-CV-01087-WBS-JDP 9 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND 10 THE CASE TO STATE COURT AND 11 v. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF FMLA CLAIMS 12 VSP LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation and

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 13 Complaint Filed: May 6, 2022

Removal Filed: June 24, 2022 14 Defendants. Trial Date: None set 15 Assigned for all purposes to 16 Hon. Judge William B. Shubb

17 Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rules 143 and 144 and Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Temeka Robinson (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Vision 19 Service Plan (erroneously named as VSP Labs Inc.) (“Defendant”) (collectively referred to as the 20 “Parties”) jointly stipulate as follows: 21 WHEREAS, on May 06, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Sacramento County 22 Superior Court against Defendant; 23 WHEREAS, on June 24, 2022, Defendant removed the matter to this Federal District Court 24 for the Eastern District of California on the grounds that there is original, federal question 25 jurisdiction based on the fourth, fifth and sixth claims for relief, which Defendant claims arise 26 under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”); 27 WHEREAS, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint in Sacramento Superior 1 2 WHEREAS, Plaintiff wishes to dismiss any and all FMLA claims in this action against 3 Defendant, with prejudice, pursuant to Romoland School Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Center, 4 LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 allows plaintiffs 5 voluntarily to dismiss some or all of their claims against some or all defendants.”); 6 WHEREAS, Plaintiff reserves the right to pursue all state law claims, including those 7 based on the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) in state court; 8 WHEREAS, the Parties hereby agree that, contingent on Plaintiff’s dismissal of any and all 9 FMLA claims against Defendant in this action with prejudice, there will no longer be any causes 10 of action arising under federal law in this matter; 11 WHEREAS, the Parties agree to a waiver of all costs and attorneys’ fees associated with 12 this dismissal with prejudice; 13 WHEREAS, the parties agree to remand this action to the Sacramento Superior Court to 14 adjudicate Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims; 15 WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by Plaintiff and Defendant, through their 16 respective attorneys of record, that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s FMLA claims against Defendant are hereby dismissed with prejudice; 18 2. Plaintiff reserves the right to pursue all state law claims, including those based on 19 the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”); 20 3. The Parties agree to a waiver of all costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this 21 dismissal with prejudice; 22 4. The Parties agree to remand this action to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 23 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 24

25 26 27 1 DATED: October 5, 2022 KENNADAY LEAVITT PC 2 3 By: KELLI M. KENNADAY 4 ALLISON M. NYE 5 Attorneys for Defendant, VISION SERVICE PLAN, erroneously sued as 6 VSP LABS, INC.

8 DATED: October 5, 2022 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 9

10 By: 11 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA Attorneys for Plaintiff, 12 TAMEKA ROBINSON

27 1 2 ORDER 3 The Court, having reviewed the Parties’ Stipulation above, and good cause therefore 4 || appearing, hereby orders: 5 1. Plaintiff's FMLA claims against Defendant are hereby dismissed with prejudice; 6 2. The Parties agree to a waiver of all costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this 7 dismissal with prejudice; 8 3. Plaintiff may pursue all state law claims, including those based on the California 9 Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) in state court; 10 4. This action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, 11 in and for the County of Sacramento. 12 ||Dated: October 5, 2022 Jy Ld . ak. 1 / 13 WILLIAMB.SHUBB 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: , 2022 20 Judge William B. Schubb 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28