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
27
28
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
—C-05-01779 RMW
DOH
E-FILED on
8/3/05
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ROBERT A. BROWN, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.; PAYROLLING.COM;
MARISSA MAYER; and DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants.
No. C-05-01779 RMW
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
[Re Docket No. 18]
Plaintiff Robert A. Brown ("Brown") moves to remand his case to state court. Brown also requests
attorney's fees incurred while litigating in federal court. Google, Inc., Payrolling.com, and Marissa Mayer
(collectively "defendants") oppose the motions. The court has read the moving and responding papers and
considered the arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Brown's motion to
remand and denies his motion for attorney's fees.
I. BACKGROUND
Brown filed a complaint in state court on February 24, 2005. Brown alleges that he accepted a job
with Google on September 3, 2002. Compl. ¶ 15. However, Brown's new hire paperwork identified
Payrolling.com as his employer. Id. at ¶ 16. Brown claims that he understood from his interview that he
Case 5:05-cv-01779-RMW Document 39 Filed 08/03/2005 Page 1 of 7
Brown v. Google, Inc. et al
Doc. 39
Dockets.Justia.com
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
27
28
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
—C-05-01779 RMW
DOH
2
would start out on a probationary basis but would receive "full benefits and increased pay" once the
probationary period ended. Id. at ¶ 15. Mayer fired Brown on May 10, 2004. Id. at ¶ 23.
Brown alleges eleven causes of action based on California law. Most importantly for the purposes
of this order, Brown's eighth cause of action, styled "Breach of Implied Contract of