1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMY RUIZ and ALLAN WONG, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01706-L-BJC individually and on behalf of all those 12 similarly situated, ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 13 DENYING MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiffs, AS MOOT 14 v. 15 GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER [ECF Nos. 2,3] 16 HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC d/b/a Haleon, a Delaware limited liability 17 company, 18 Defendant. 19

20 On September 24, 2024, Defendant GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare 21 Holdings (US) LLC (“Defendant”), removed the above captioned case from the Superior 22 Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa to this Court. [ECF No. 1.] On 23 September 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court 24 arguing that the Southern District of California is not the proper venue as Contra Costa 25 County lies within the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 2.) 26 Under the federal removal statute, a civil action over which federal courts may 27 otherwise have original jurisdiction may be removed from state court to the federal 28 1 1 || judicial district “embracing the place where such action is pending.”

(a). 2 || Contra Costa County is located within the Northern District, not the Southern District, of 3 || California. 4 Defendants had not yet filed a notice of removal with the state court “which shall 5 effect the removal.”

(d). Upon realizing their error, Defendant timely 6 removed the case to the Northern District of California and filed the notice of removal 7 || with the state court to effect the removal under

(d). Accordingly, 8 || Defendant now requests we close this matter to allow them to proceed in the Northern 9 || District. 10 In light of the above, the Court will dismiss this case to allow the litigation to 11 || proceed in the Northern District of California. Had the Defendant not otherwise 12 || corrected their error and removed the case to the Northern District of California, in the 13 ||interests of judicial economy and efficiency, the Court would have considered 14 || transferring the case to the proper venue in the Northern District of California instead of 15 ||remanding the action. See Steel Commander Corp. v. Pascua, No. CV 22-00498 JMS- 16 || KJM,

, at *1 (D. Haw. Dec. 5, 2022); Penetrante v. Jaguar Land 17 || Rover NA, LLC, No. CV162952MWFGJSX,

, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 18 2016). For the foregoing reasons, the Court now DISMISSES this action and 19 || DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand as moot. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: October 8, 2024 1 fee fp 73 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 3:24-cv-01706-L-BJC