Beasley v. Tootsie Roll Industries Inc

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 MAXINE BEASLEY, CASE No. 21-cv-01297-YGR 7 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 8 VS. IN PART MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 9 TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 17

10 Defendant.

11 On January 25, 2021, plaintiff filed this action in Alameda County Superior Court. 12 || Defendant removed the case to federal court on February 23, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 1-4.) On March 2, || 2021, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. |} 9.) On March 9, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to remand based on the lack of subject matter 15 || jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 17.) Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted on A 16 the motion, and for the reasons stated on the record at the April 13, 2021 hearing, the Court || GRANTs plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court, DENIES the request for attorney’s || fees incurred by the motion to remand, and DENIES AS MOOT defendant’s motion to dismiss. In || light of McGee v. S-L Snacks Nat’l, 982 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2020), plaintiff fails to allege an injury || in fact sufficient for Article III standing. Accordingly, the Court is without subject matter || jurisdiction. See Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We hold || that upon determining that it lacked jurisdiction, the district court should have remanded the case || to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1447(c).”).

24 The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND the case to the Alameda County Superior || Court and close the file.

26 IT Is SO ORDERED.

27 || Dated: April 16, 2021

28 VONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE