1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MAGGIE BLAND, CASE NO. 21-cv-01689-YGR

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND 10 vs. AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 11 MARIN AIRPORTER, Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 34 12 Defendant.

13 On December 14, 2020, plaintiff filed this action in Marin County Superior Court. 14 Defendant removed the case to federal court on March 10, 2021. (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 18, 2021, 15 defendant filed a motion to dismiss the PAGA claim and to strike the PAGA allegations. (Dkt. 16 No. 32.) On May 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to remand based on the lack of subject matter 17 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 34.) Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted on 18 the motion, and for the reasons stated on the record at the June 29, 2021 hearing, the Court 19 GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court and DENIES AS MOOT defendant’s 20 motion to dismiss/strike. 21 “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction depends only on the named plaintiffs.” Gibson v. Chrysler 22 Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2001) (examining only the claims of named class plaintiffs for 23 purposes of the amount-in-controversy requirement in diversity class actions). Here, plaintiff is a 24 cashier. The hours-of-service regulations promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 25 Administration, which was the basis for removal, do not cover plaintiff’s claims. On that basis 26 alone, remand is appropriate. The Court also notes that even if she were a driver, it is not clear 27 that defendant could articulate how the drivers are engaging in interstate commerce given the local ] The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND the case to the Marin County Superior Court 2 and close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: July 2, 2021 pen 4 cas 4 “Se YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

14

15 16

17

Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28