Barsanti v. DeLoach

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Daniel Barsanti, et al., No. CV-25-00303-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Cameron DeLoach, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 There are no longer any pending claims based on federal law and the parties admit they are not completely diverse. See Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (diversity jurisdiction requires “each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants”). The parties state they “would appreciate the Court’s guidance and consideration of the First Amended Complaint along with the parties’ Answers,” but they do not explain how the court would have jurisdiction to do so. (Doc.

21 52 at 2.) The parties also state they “do not object” to a “remand [of] this matter to the State of Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County.” (Doc. 52 at 2.) The original complaint was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California. “[B]ecause this action was never filed in state court and removed to federal court, it cannot be ‘remanded’—only cases that have been removed from a given court can be remanded to that court.” Wittner v. Banner Health, 720 F.3d 770, 781 (10th Cir. 2013). So instead of remand, the court must dismiss all claims without prejudice to their refiling in state court.

28 Accordingly, 1 IT IS ORDERED all claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 2|| Clerk of Court shall close this case.

3 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2025. ° / Jy Vo A. | G / 6 LA Ata Ye OC ft □□ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 7 United States District Judge _2-