1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 VICTORIA FRIESON, an individual; Case No.: 3:22-cv-02212-MMC TINA COMBS successor in interest of [Alameda County Superior Court Case No.: 12 Decedent INELL JENKINS 21CV000537]

13 Plaintiffs, [Re-assigned to Hon. Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge] 14 v. ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ 15 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE TO Virginia corporation; JUSTINE, an STATE COURT 16 individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

17 Defendants.

18 Complaint Filed: October 13, 2021

19 20 The Court, having read and considered the parties’ Stipulation to Remand, 21 hereby ORDERS as follows: 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On October 13, 2021, Plaintiffs VICTORIA FRIESON, an individual; TINA 24 COMBS successor in interest of Decedent INELL JENKINS (“Plaintiffs”) 25 commenced the above-entitled action in the Superior Court for the State of 26 California, County of Alameda by filing a Complaint therein entitled VICTORIA 27 FRIESON; TINA COMBS successor in interest of Decedent INELL JENKINS v. 28 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.; JUSTINE; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 1 21CV000537. Plaintiffs’ Complaint for personal injury arises from an alleged 2 incident on October 17, 2019, at a Dollar Tree store located in the City of San 3 Leandro, County of Alameda, State of California. Dollar Tree removed the matter to 4 federal court pursuant to

, 1441, and 1367, on April 8, 2022. 5 Dollar Tree has identified its manager on duty at the time of this incident in its 6 Initial Disclosures as Soraida Miramontes. Plaintiff has advised its intent to file a 7 motion for leave to amend to add the manager on duty as a defendant and to remand 8 to state court. The parties have met and conferred on this issue. 9 The parties have now agreed and stipulated that with the addition of the Dollar 10 Tree manager on duty, complete diversity will no longer exist. Accordingly, the 11 parties request an order from this Court remanding the case to the Alameda County 12 Superior Court, Case No. 21CV000537, and have agreed that with such remand, 13 Plaintiff will not add Dollar Tree employee Soraida Miramontes as a defendant. The 14 parties have further agreed that so long as Soraida Miramontes remains an employee 15 of defendant, defendant will produce her for testimony. 16 II. ANALYSIS 17 United States Code, Title 28, Section 1447(c), provides that “[i]f at any time 18 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 19 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” (Emphasis added). Because complete 20 diversity no longer exists, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must, 21 therefore, remand the case to state court pursuant to

(c). See Bruns 22 v. NCUA

, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Section 1447(c) is mandatory, not 23 discretionary.”) 24 III. ORDER OF THE COURT 25 1. Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, because complete diversity will no 26 longer exist, this Court will no longer has subject matter jurisdiction and the matter is 27 hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of 28 Alameda, Case No.: 21CV000537. This Order shall be accorded full force and effect 1}| in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, Case No. 2|| 21CV000537. 3 2. All pending dates in the Federal action are hereby vacated. 4 3. Plaintiff will not name defendant’s employee Soraida Miramontes as a 5|| defendant. Defendant will make Soraida Miramontes available for testimony in the 6|| instant case so long as Soraida Miramontes remains an employee of Defendant. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated; — July 25 , 2022 . S51] Hap. ‘Maxine M. Chesney United States District Court Judge 29 12

14 as g 15 20 Bs Ss 16 > = 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-