You're viewing Docket Item 18 from the case Ollie Hinex v. Durham School Services et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 5:13-cv-00738-CAS-OP Document 18 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:410

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL JS-5
July 11, 2013

CV 13-0738 CAS (OPx)
OLLIE HINEX V. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, ET AL.

Date

Case No.
Title

Present: The Honorable
Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Not Present

N/A

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Not present

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS): DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (filed July 2, 2013) [16]

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of August 12, 2013, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.

On September 28, 2012, plaintiff Ollie Hinex filed the instant action in the San

Bernardino County Superior Court. Defendants Durham School Services L.P.
(“Durham” or “defendant”) and San Bernardino Unified School District removed the
action to this Court on April 22, 2013, contending that at least one of plaintiff’s claims is
completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
(“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, giving rise to federal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on May 3, 2013, asserting

claims for (1) termination in violation of public policy and (2) retaliation, neither of
which independently gives rise to federal jurisdiction.1 On May 10, 2013, plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed all of her claims against the San Bernardino Unified School
District. On July 1, 2013, after a hearing, the Court issued an order declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining two claims and remanding them to
the San Bernardino County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 15.

1 Although this document is labeled a “First Amended Complaint,” it appears to be

the second amended complaint plaintiff has filed, although it was the first to be filed in
this Court. The Court will refer to it as the Second Amended Complaint.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

Case 5:13-cv-00738-CAS-OP Document 18 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:411

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL JS-5
July 11, 2013

CV 13-0738 CAS (OPx)
OLLIE HINEX V. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, ET AL.

Case No.
Title

Date

Before the Court issued a transmittal letter, however, defendant filed a motion for
reconsideration on July 2, 2013. Defendant submits that plaintiff’s dismissal of the San
Bernardino Unified School District gives rise to diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
remaining claims, as Durham is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois, whereas plaintiff is a
citizen of California. See Decl. of Richard S. Cozza ¶¶ 3–11. Moreover, although the
operative complaint does not definitively state the amount in controversy, it is apparent
from the claims asserted and relief sought that this figure will exceed the $75,000
threshold.

After considering defendant’s motion, the Court finds it appropriate to reconsider
its decision to remand plaintiff’s remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Although
defendant failed to raise the potential for diversity jurisdiction at the hearing, the
evidence submitted in defendant’s motion for reconsideration makes it apparent that the
exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claims is warranted under 28 U.S.C. §
1332.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for reconsideration and
hereby RETAINS jurisdiction over the instant case. The Court RESETS defendant’s
motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 11, for hearing on July 29, 2013, at 10:00 am.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CMJ

00

:

00

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2