Saturnino Doroteo, Jr. v. Walmart Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SATURNINO DOROTEO, JR., ) Case No. CV 24-9478 FMO (MAAx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND WALMART INC., et al.

15 Defendants.

17 On March 13, 2024, Saturnino Doroteo Jr. (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Walmart, Inc., Walmart LLC, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart 19|| Associates, Inc. (collectively, “Walmart’) and Aidee Moreno (“Moreno”), asserting claims for, || among other things, violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA’”), Cal. Govt. Code § 12940, et seq., and California Labor Code § 1102.5. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal NOR’) at 71 & 9). On April 15, 2024, Walmart removed the action on diversity jurisdiction || grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 1441(b), (see id. at ] 3), and the court remanded the || case. (See id. at | 4). After the superior court dismissed plaintiff's claims against Moreno, the || only non-diverse defendant, Walmart again removed the action, asserting diversity jurisdiction.

26 (See id. at J] 6).

27 Now pending is plaintiff's Motion for Order Remanding Action (Dkt. 17, “Motion”). Having || reviewed the pleadings and the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff's Motion, the court concludes that the superior court’s order “created a new occasion for removal.” Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 781 F.3d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015); see id. at 1188-89.

3 This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

5 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Document No. 17) is denied without prejudice.

7 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2025.

8 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 9 United States District Judge