Turner v. Windsor Healthcare Center of Oakland

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Turner v. Windsor Healthcare Center of Oakland

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VALARIE TURNER, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02466-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 14 10 WINDSOR OAKRIDGE HEALTHCARE CENTER, LP, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is the motion to remand filed by Plaintiffs Valarie Turner, Syble 14 Thomas, Betty Smith, and Bobbie Frost. See Dkt. No. 14. The Court finds this matter appropriate 15 for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 In their opposition, Defendants appear to concede that controlling Ninth Circuit authority, 17 Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC,

27 F.4th 679

(9th Cir. 2022), requires remand. See Dkt. 18 No. 11 at 5 (“Defendants are aware that this Court is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent in Saldana 19 v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC . . . .”). This Court has recently found that remand is warranted 20 under similar circumstances, and adopts the reasoning of that case in its entirety. See Martinez v. 21 Novato Healthcare Ctr., LLC, No. 21-CV-09547-HSG,

2022 WL 2981825

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 22 28, 2022). Despite Defendants’ urging, see Dkt. No. 11 at 18–19, the Court finds no basis to stay 23 the case based on the prospect that the parties in Saldana v. Glenhaven may file a petition for writ 24 of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 The Court accordingly GRANTS the motion and REMANDS the case to Alameda 2 || Superior Court. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: 8/9/2022 5 Akatpered 8 Mbt |) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown