1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIANE GARDEA, No. 2:24-cv-03383-DAD-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMANDING 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., THIS ACTION TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 8, 11) 16

17 18 Plaintiff Adriane Gardea is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On January 13, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s unopposed motion to remand this action to the Sacramento County 23 Superior Court be granted. (Doc. No. 11 at 3.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that 24 because plaintiff’s first amended complaint deleted the Eighth Amendment claim that had been 25 asserted in her original complaint, it was within the court’s discretion whether to exercise 26 supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. (Id. at 1–2.) Because 27 defendants did not oppose remand and “this case is in its early stages,” the magistrate judge 28 concluded that remand to state court was appropriate. (Id. at 2.) The pending findings and 1 || recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 2 | were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Ud. at 3.) To date, no objections to the 3 | findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 4 Two days after the pending findings and recommendations were issued, on January 15, 5 | 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 6 | USS. 22 (2025), holding that “[w]hen an amendment excises the federal-law claims that enabled 7 | removal, the federal court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. 8 || The case must therefore return to state court.” 604 U.S. at 25. Consequently, the court will adopt 9 | the recommendation that this case be remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court, while 10 | noting that it lacks discretion to do otherwise pursuant to the Supreme Court’s subsequent 11 | decision in Royal Canin. 12 Accordingly: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 13, 2025 (Doc. No. 11) are 14 ADOPTED, as discussed in this order; 15 2. Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED; 16 3. This action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and 17 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 9, 2025 Dae A. 2, gel 20 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28