1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA LAURA FLORES TAPIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01294 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND REMAND 14 BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF TEXAS, INC. et al. (Docs. 22, 23, 37) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Maria Laura Flores Tapia initiated this action by filing a complaint in Kern County 18 Superior Court, seeking to hold the defendants liable for injuries she sustained when she slipped 19 and fell in the Burlington Coat Factory store located in Bakersfield, California. (Docs. 1 at 5-6.) 20 Burlington removed the action to the federal court, asserting this Court has diversity jurisdiction 21 pursuant to

. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to identify one of 22 the fictitious defendants as Tyler Wacthorn—an employee of Burlington, “who was tasked with 23 customer service safety”— and remand the action to the state court. (Doc. 22-1 at 2.) 24 The assigned magistrate judge found the requirements for joinder under

1447(e) weighed in favor of permitting amendment, and Burlington did not carry its heavy burden 26 of rebutting the presumption against fraudulent joinder. (Doc. 37 at 4-10.) The magistrate judge 27 recommended the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, the proposed amended complaint (Doc 27) be deemed filed, and the action be remanded to the state court. (Id. at 10.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them any 2 | objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 37 at 10.) The Court advised the parties that “failure to 3 | file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d. at 10- 4 | 11, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Neither party filed 5 | objections, and the time do so expired. 6 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 7 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 8 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 26, 2024 (Doc. 37) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and to remand (Docs. 22, 23) is GRANTED. 12 3. The amended complaint (Doc. 27) is deemed FILED and is the operative 13 complaint. 14 4. This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, 15 County of Kern. 16 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _August 16, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28