Melton v. Universal Cable Holdings, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-07360
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Melton v. Universal Cable Holdings, Inc., Judge Alsup denied Kim Melton’s reconsideration motion but noted she could seek remand by stipulating to $75,000 or less.
Kim Melton and Universal Cable Holdings, Inc.; the order also concerns Melton’s action on behalf of all aggrieved employees.
What happened
Melton v. Universal Cable Holdings, Inc. involved Kim Melton’s request to reconsider an earlier order that denied a stipulation to send the case back to state court. The case concerns an action brought by Melton individually and for all aggrieved employees.
Melton’s motion argued that the action was not a class action. The court said that point did not address the reasons given in the earlier order. It also explained that the requirement for judicial approval of any settlement applied because of the California Labor Code provision governing the action.
Judge Alsup denied the motion for reconsideration. He said the order did not prevent Melton from submitting a sworn statement that she did not and would not seek more than $75,000, including her individual attorney’s fees. No such statement had been submitted.
The detailed version
- Melton v. Universal Cable Holdings, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-07360
- William Alsup
- July 20, 2020
Background
Kim Melton sued Universal Cable Holdings, Inc., doing business as Suddenlink Communications, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees. The court had previously denied a stipulation to remand, meaning a stipulation intended to return the case to state court. Melton then moved for reconsideration of the July 2 order.
The Motion
The court said Melton’s motion focused on the position that a PAGA action is not a class action. The court found that this argument ignored the reasons stated in the earlier order for denying the stipulation to remand. To the extent the earlier order explained that a settlement would require judicial approval, the court stated that PAGA itself provides for that requirement and cited California Labor Code section 2699(l)(2).
Ruling
Judge William Alsup denied Melton’s motion for reconsideration. The court did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
The court also stated that its order did not prevent Melton from submitting a sworn statement that she did not and would not seek more than $75,000, including her individual attorney’s fees. The order cited authority stating that individual plaintiffs may avoid removal to federal court and obtain a remand by stipulating that the amount at issue is below the federal jurisdictional requirement. The court noted that Melton had not yet presented such an affidavit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.