Kastler v. Oh My Green, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 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. 26 Dated: October 1, 2019 Attegurerd 3, Ad_}. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge