1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 KIM MELTON, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees, 11 No. C 19-07360 WHA Plaintiff, 12

v.

13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S UNIVERSAL CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., MOTION FOR 14 dba SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS, RECONSIDERATION 15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the July 2 order ignores the reasons given for 18 denying the stipulation to remand. Instead, it focuses on the uncontroversial position that a 19 PAGA action is not a class action. To the extent the prior order explained that any settlement 20 would need judicial approval, PAGA itself provides as much. See CAL. LAB. CODE 21 § 2699(l)(2). The motion is therefore DENIED. 22 This order does not prevent plaintiff from swearing that she does not and will not seek 23 more than $75,000.00, including her individual attorney’s fees. “[F]ederal courts permit 24 individual plaintiffs, who are the masters of their complaints, to avoid removal to federal court, 25 and to obtain a remand to state court, by stipulating to amounts at issue that fall below the 26 federal jurisdictional requirement.” Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,

, 595 27 (2013). District courts within our circuit have remanded like actions on the condition that the 1 amount above the jurisdictional minimum once in state court. See, e.g., Sherman v. 2 Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. CV 12-—152-MDLC-JCL,

(D. Mont. Jan. 15, 3 2013) (Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch); Cicero v. Target Corp., No. 2:13-CV-619 JCM 4 (GWPF),

(D. Nev. June 26, 2013) (Judge James Mahan). No such affidavit 5 has yet been presented. 6 7 IT ISSO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: July 20, 2020 10 1] i "4 i □ ene ‘AM ALSUP 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14

15

16

il

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28