1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMA LOPEZ, individually and on Case No.: 23-cv-02155-JO-SBC behalf of all others similarly situated, 12

Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO REMAND, DENYING 14 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT 15 JUDICIAL NOTICE, DENYING SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 16 50, inclusive, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND 17 Defendants. DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 18

19

20

21

22 For the reasons stated on the record, the Court issues the following rulings. First, 23 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand [Dkt. 6] because Defendant FedEx Office 24 and Print Services, Inc.’s (“Defendant FedEx”) has not met its burden to establish that the 25 amount in controversy, when considering attorneys’ fees, more likely than not exceeds 26 $75,000 as required to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life 27 Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1996). 28 1 Second, the Court DENIES as MOOT Defendant FedEx’s request for judicial 2 ||notice [Dkt. 15-4] on the grounds that the Court did not rely on these documents in 3 || reaching its decision. 4 Third, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 5 ||U.S.C. § 1447(c) because Plaintiff has not shown that “the removing party lacked an 6 || objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546

, 141 (2005). 8 Finally, because the Court remands this case to state court, the Court also DENIES 9 MOOT Defendant FedEx’s motion to compel arbitration [Dkt. 8]. 10 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. 11 |} IS SO ORDERED. 12 Qe B Dated: January 31, 2024 14 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28