Kunda Sagar v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Opinion

6 JS-6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 10

11 KUNDA SAGAR, Case No. 2:24-cv-04218 FMO(ASx) [Los Angeles County Superior Court Case 12 Plaintiff, No. 23CHCV02964]

13 v. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 14 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.; [13] TO REMAND CASE TO STATE ALEXANDRA RAMOS; and DOES 1 COURT 15 to 50,

16 Defendants. Complaint Filed: October 2, 2023 17

18 The Court, having read and considered the parties’ Stipulation to Remand, 19 hereby ORDERS as follows: 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff KUNDA SAGAR (“Plaintiff”) commenced the 22 above-entitled action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los 23 Angeles, by filing a Complaint therein entitled Kunda Sagar v. Dollar Tree Stores, 24 Inc.; Alexandra Ramos; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive; Case No. 23CHCV02964. 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint for personal injury arises from an alleged incident on March 26 11, 2023, at a Dollar Tree store located in the City of Chatsworth, County of Los 27 Angeles, State of California. Defendants removed the matter to federal court 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441, and 1367, on May 21, 2024. 1 On June 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Notice and Motion to Remand Action to 2 State Court [Doc. 12]. The motion is based on the “forum defendant” rule on the 3 ground that defendant ALEXANDRA RAMOS is a resident of the State of California. 4 The parties have met and conferred on this issue. 5 The parties have now agreed and stipulated that defendant ALEXANDRA 6 RAMOS is a resident of the State of California and per 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) this case is 7 not removable and this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, 8 the parties request an order from this Court remanding the case to the Los Angeles 9 County Superior Court, Case No. 23CHCV02964. 10 II. ANALYSIS 11 United States Code, Title 28, Section 1447(c), provides that “[i]f at any time 12 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 13 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” (Emphasis added). Because 14 ALEXANDRA RAMOS is a “forum defendant,” this Court lacks subject matter 15 jurisdiction and must, therefore, remand the case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1447(c). See Bruns v. NCUA 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Section 17 1447(c) is mandatory, not discretionary.”) 18 III. ORDER OF THE COURT 19 1. Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, and because this Court does not have 20 subject matter jurisdiction, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court 21 for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.: 23CHCV02964. This 22 Order shall be accorded full force and effect in the Superior Court of the State of 23 California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.: 23CHCV02964. 24 2. All pending dates in the Federal action are hereby vacated. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: June 27, 2024 __________/s/______________ Hon. Fernando M. Olguin 28