Pietrzak et al v. Target Corporation

Filing 22

ORDER REMANDING CASE.. Signed by Judge Beeler on 2/29/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
ALBINA PIETRZEK, BASCIA MICHALAK,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,

No. C 11-01142 LB
ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.
13
14

TARGET CORPORATION, EXCEL
BUILDING SERVICES, LLC,

15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
On September 12, 2011, after the court granted leave to amend, Plaintiffs Albina Pietrzek and
17

Bascia Michalak filed an amended complaint. See ECF No. 17.1 The amended complaint is

18
identical to the complaint previously filed as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. See ECF
19
No. 13-2.
20
As the court ruled when it gave leave to amend, the amended complaint - which adds Excel
21
Building Services, a non-diverse defendant, and makes minimal changes to the factual allegations 22
destroys federal diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 17 at 2, ¶ 5, 7. At the hearing the parties agreed,
23
and the court now holds, that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that remand is
24
appropriate and fair. See ECF No. 17 at 2, ¶ 7; ECF No. 16 at 4-5. Carnegie-Mellon University v.
25
Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988).
26
27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-01142 LB
ORDER

1
2
3
4

All parties named in the amended complaint have consented to this court’s jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the court now remands the case to Alameda County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 29, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 11-01142 LB
ORDER

2