Adjadj v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion to remand a state court action to federal court after Defendants failed to justify their removal in response to a show cause order. The court granted the motion to remand but denied Plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Remand Granted“As Defendants have failed to establish a basis for removal, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand to Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2024-00024067-CU-PO-CTL.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that the removing party bears the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. Because the defendants failed to satisfy the court's show cause order regarding the timeliness of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) and explicitly stated they did not oppose remand, the grant of the motion follows logically from the record and the law. |
Request for Costs and Attorney Fees Denied“Further, the Court considered Plaintiff's request to be awarded costs and attorney fees incurred due to the removal, and the request is DENIED.” | unsure The order provides no reasoning for denying the request for fees and costs, which are often awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) when a case is remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While the court has discretion, the lack of explanation makes it difficult to assess the correctness of the decision based solely on the text provided. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound regarding the remand, correctly identifying the burden on the removing party and noting their failure to meet it. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' decision because it fails to provide any reasoning for denying the plaintiff's request for costs and attorney fees, a common remedy in remand cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NADA ADJADJ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01636-CAB-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. REMAND 14 SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, LLC, [ECF No. 5] et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff Nada Adjadj filed a lawsuit against Defendants Sprouts 18 Farmers Market (“Sprouts”), et al., in the Superior Court of California, County of San 19 Diego. Defendants filed a notice of removal with the Court on Sept. 12, 2024. [ECF No. 20 1.] Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on Oct. 4, 2024. [ECF No. 5.] On Nov. 1, 2024, the 21 Court issued an order to Defendants to show cause for removal as (1) over thirty days 22 lapsed since Defendants’ receipt of the initial pleading, and (2) Defendants had not 23 indicated from what document they first ascertained that the case was removable to sustain 24 removal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (b)(3). [ECF No. 8.] In their response to the order, 25 Defendants failed to satisfy the Court’s request and stated they did not oppose remand. 26 [ECF No. 10 ¶ 7.] 27 28 l Defendants are the removing party—and they bear the burden of demonstrating that 2 ||removal is proper. Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 3 ||2017). As Defendants have failed to establish a basis for removal, the Court GRANTS 4 || Plaintiff's motion to remand to Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case 5 ||No. 37-2024-00024067-CU-PO-CTL. [ECF No. 5.] Further, the Court considered 6 || Plaintiff's request to be awarded costs and attorney fees incurred due to the removal, and 7 || the request is DENIED. 8 9 Itis SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: November 27, 2024 (GR 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28