Quintana v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02109

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR REMAND; AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA re {{21}} Stipulation filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/11/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 AARON QUINTANA, 4 Case No. 15-cv-02109-YGR Plaintiff, 5 v. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST 6 FOR REMAND CVS PHARMACY, INC., 7 Re: Dkt. No. 21 Defendant. 8 9 10 On August 10, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss defendant CVS Pharmacy, 11 Inc. and substitute Longs Drugs Stores California, L.L.C. in place of the "Doe 1" defendant. (Dkt. 12 No. 21.) The request also sought remand of the case to Alameda County Superior Court, Northern District of California United States District Court 13 presumably because amendments to the complaint destroy the Court's diversity jurisdiction over 14 this matter.1 15 Good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties' stipulated request insofar as it 16 seeks remand of the action to state court. The remaining requests may be directed to the state 17 court. Thus, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, 18 County of Alameda. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: August 11, 2015 21 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 23 24 1 The incorrectly filed First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 20) names two individual 25 defendants who are identified as California residents. Plaintiff is also apparently a California resident. (Dkt. No. 1.) As discussed at the July 7, 2015 hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, 26 those individuals were identified by first names in the original complaint, which indicated plaintiff's intention to add them as parties as soon as their identities were discovered. As the basis 27 for removal of this state-law action was diversity jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 1), the amendment divests the Court of jurisdiction over this action, and remand is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 28 1447.