1 JS-6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MANAL DABABNEH, Case No.: 5:25−cv−418 KK (SHKx) [San Bernardino County Superior Court 12 Plaintiff, Case No.: CIVSB2436873]

13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ 14 LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC; STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE KEVIN SHINDLER; and DOES 1 TO STATE COURT AND FOR 15 through 50, Inclusive, DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT KEVIN SHINDLER 16 Defendants.

17 Complaint Filed: 12/12/2024

18 The Court, having read and considered the parties’ Stipulation to Remand Case 19 to State Court and for Dismissal of Defendant Kevin Shindler, hereby ORDERS as 20 follows: 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff MANAL DABABNEH (“Plaintiff”) 23 commenced the above-entitled action in the Superior Court for the State of 24 California, County of San Bernardino by filing a Complaint therein entitled MANAL 25 DABABNEH v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, KEVIN SHINDLER; and DOES 1 26 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2436873. Plaintiff’s Complaint for personal 27 injury arises from an alleged incident on July 31, 2024, at a Lowe’s store located in 28 the City of Redlands, County of San Bernardino, State of California. Lowe’s 1 removed the matter to federal court pursuant to

, 1441, and 1367, 2 on February 13, 2025. 3 Lowe’s has identified its manager on duty at the time of this incident in its Initial 4 Disclosures as Netty Threadgill. Plaintiff has advised its intent to file a motion for 5 leave to amend to add the manager on duty as a defendant. Plaintiff has already filed 6 a motion to remand to state court. Defendant has requested that Plaintiff dismiss Kevin 7 Shindler from the action. The parties have met and conferred on this issue. 8 The parties have now agreed and stipulated that with the addition of the 9 Lowe’s manager on duty, complete diversity will no longer exist. Accordingly, the 10 parties request an order from this Court remanding the case to the San Bernardino 11 County Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2436873, and have agreed that with such 12 remand, Plaintiff will not add Lowe’s employee Netty Threadgill, or any other 13 employee, as a defendant. Plaintiff has further agreed that in exchange for the 14 remand, she will dismiss Kevin Shindler from the action. 15 II. ANALYSIS 16 United States Code, Title 28, Section 1447(c), provides that “[i]f at any time 17 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 18 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” (Emphasis added). Because complete 19 diversity no longer exists, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must, 20 therefore, remand the case to state court pursuant to

(c). See Bruns 21 v. NCUA

, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Section 1447(c) is mandatory, not 22 discretionary.”) 23 III. ORDER OF THE COURT 24 1. Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, the Complaint against Kevin Shindler 25 is hereby dismissed. 26 2. Further pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, because complete diversity 27 will no longer exist, this Court will no longer has subject matter jurisdiction and the 28 matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for the State of California, 1|| County of San Bernardino, Case No.: CIVSB2436873. This Order shall be accordec 2|| full force and effect in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sar 3|| Bernardino, Case No.: 21CV000537. 4 2. All pending dates in the Federal action are hereby vacated. 5 3. Plaintiff will not name defendant’s employee Netty Threadgill or any 6|| other employee of defendant, as a defendant. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. | bun 9 Dated: April 225095 Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato = United States District Court Judge 12

ge 13

14 Qs 15 20 E16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-