Magana v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 CAROLINA ZAMORA MAGANA, No. 1:20-cv-00578-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING 14 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND COMPANY dba ADM GOLDEN 15 PEANUT, (Doc. No. 35) 16 Defendant. — 17 — 18 Plaintiff Carolina Zamora Magana initiated this action in San Francisco County Superior 19 Court on February 21, 2020. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 3.) On March 30, 2020, defendant removed the 20 case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California based upon 21 diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 at 4–7.) The action was then transferred to this court pursuant 22 to stipulation on April 23, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 13 & 14.) 23 On March 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 24 No. 21.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(a). 26 On June 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 27 recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted, and, upon filing of an amended complaint, that 28 the case be remanded to the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 35.) The parties were 1 | provided until June 30, 2021, in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. 2 | (Doc. No. 35.) No objections were filed by either party. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 4 | conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 | undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 6 || proper analysis, and adopts them with the modification that the action shall be remanded to the 7 || San Francisco County Superior Court, where the action was originally filed. 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 35) are 10 ADOPTED IN PART as modified; 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 21) is granted; 12 3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that joins Elizabeth Hurtado as a 13 defendant and adds a claim against her for invasion of privacy by means of 14 intrusion into private affairs within seven days of the date of this order; and 15 4. Because the joinder of the additional defendant in the amended complaint destroys 16 diversity jurisdiction, following the filing of the amended complaint this action 17 shall be remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court and the Clerk of 18 Court shall be directed to close this case at that time. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 20 JRA Dated: _ July 13, 2021 Hen | aor 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — 25 |; —— ' See LimitNone LLC vy. Google Inc., No. C 09-00412 JW, 2009 WL 10695687 , at *4 (N.D. Cal. 26 Apr. 24, 2009) (citing Allied Signal Recovery Trust v. Allied Signal Inc., 298 F.3d 263, 270 (3d Cir. 2002) (“Remand means ‘send back.’ It does not mean ‘send elsewhere.”’)). Accord Bloom v. Barry, 755 F.2d 356, 358 (3d Cir. 1985) (“The only remand contemplated by the removal 28 || statute is a remand ‘to the State court from which it was removed.’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d)). >