Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc.

N.D. California

Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc.

DecidedOctober 1, 2019

Docket4:19-cv-02411

StatusUnknown

This text of Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc. (Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANNE KASTLER, Case No. 19-cv-02411-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 9 Vv. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 10 OH MY GREEN, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 24 11 Defendant. 12

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand. See Dkt. No. 12. Although 14 || Plaintiff initially argued that Defendant failed to establish the diversity or the amount in 3 15 controversy requirements under CAFA, Plaintiff ultimately argued in her reply brief that even if a 16 || Defendant satisfied both requirements, the local controversy and home-state controversy 3 17 || exceptions require that the Court remand the case to state court. Dkt. Nos. 12 at 9-10, 24 at 6-7. 18 || Although arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are ordinarily deemed waived, see 19 Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court has “a duty to establish subject 20 || matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” 21 United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, 22 || Defendant is directed to submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, addressing whether 23 || these exceptions apply in this case. The brief must be submitted by October 7, 2019. No 24 || responsive filings will be permitted. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 1, 2019 Attegurerd 3, Ad_}. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANNE KASTLER, Case No. 19-cv-02411-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 9 Vv. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 10 OH MY GREEN, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 24 11 Defendant. 12

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand. See Dkt. No. 12. Although 14 || Plaintiff initially argued that Defendant failed to establish the diversity or the amount in 3 15 controversy requirements under CAFA, Plaintiff ultimately argued in her reply brief that even if a 16 || Defendant satisfied both requirements, the local controversy and home-state controversy 3 17 || exceptions require that the Court remand the case to state court. Dkt. Nos. 12 at 9-10, 24 at 6-7. 18 || Although arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are ordinarily deemed waived, see 19 Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court has “a duty to establish subject 20 || matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” 21 United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, 22 || Defendant is directed to submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, addressing whether 23 || these exceptions apply in this case. The brief must be submitted by October 7, 2019. No 24 || responsive filings will be permitted. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 1, 2019 Attegurerd 3, Ad_}. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kastler-v-oh-my-green-inc-cand-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack