Saturnino Doroteo, Jr. v. Walmart Inc.

C.D. California

Saturnino Doroteo, Jr. v. Walmart Inc.

DecidedApril 3, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-09478

StatusUnknown

This text of Saturnino Doroteo, Jr. v. Walmart Inc. (Saturnino Doroteo, Jr. v. Walmart Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saturnino Doroteo, Jr. v. Walmart Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SATURNINO DOROTEO, JR., ) Case No. CV 24-9478 FMO (MAAx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND WALMART INC., et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 13, 2024, Saturnino Doroteo Jr. (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Walmart, Inc., Walmart LLC, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart 19|| Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Walmart’) and Aidee Moreno (“Moreno”), asserting claims for, 20 || among other things, violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA’”), Cal. Govt. Code § 12940, et seq., and California Labor Code § 1102.5. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal NOR’) at 71 & 9). On April 15, 2024, Walmart removed the action on diversity jurisdiction 23 || grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 1441(b), (see id. at ] 3), and the court remanded the 24 || case. (See id. at | 4). After the superior court dismissed plaintiff's claims against Moreno, the 25 || only non-diverse defendant, Walmart again removed the action, asserting diversity jurisdiction. 26 (See id. at J] 6). 27 Now pending is plaintiff's Motion for Order Remanding Action (Dkt. 17, “Motion”). Having 28 || reviewed the pleadings and the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff's Motion, the court concludes

1 that the superior court’s order “created a new occasion for removal.” Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, 2 Inc., 781 F.3d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015); see id. at 1188-89. 3 This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or 4 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. 5 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Document 6 No. 17) is denied without prejudice. 7 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2025. 8 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SATURNINO DOROTEO, JR., ) Case No. CV 24-9478 FMO (MAAx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND WALMART INC., et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 13, 2024, Saturnino Doroteo Jr. (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Walmart, Inc., Walmart LLC, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart 19|| Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Walmart’) and Aidee Moreno (“Moreno”), asserting claims for, 20 || among other things, violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA’”), Cal. Govt. Code § 12940, et seq., and California Labor Code § 1102.5. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal NOR’) at 71 & 9). On April 15, 2024, Walmart removed the action on diversity jurisdiction 23 || grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 1441(b), (see id. at ] 3), and the court remanded the 24 || case. (See id. at | 4). After the superior court dismissed plaintiff's claims against Moreno, the 25 || only non-diverse defendant, Walmart again removed the action, asserting diversity jurisdiction. 26 (See id. at J] 6). 27 Now pending is plaintiff's Motion for Order Remanding Action (Dkt. 17, “Motion”). Having 28 || reviewed the pleadings and the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff's Motion, the court concludes

1 that the superior court’s order “created a new occasion for removal.” Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, 2 Inc., 781 F.3d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015); see id. at 1188-89. 3 This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or 4 submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. 5 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Document 6 No. 17) is denied without prejudice. 7 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2025. 8 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Saturnino Doroteo, Jr. v. Walmart Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saturnino-doroteo-jr-v-walmart-inc-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack