Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02109/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02109-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON QUINTANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CVS PHARMACY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02109-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST 

FOR REMAND 

Re: Dkt. No. 21

On August 10, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss defendant CVS Pharmacy, 

Inc. and substitute Longs Drugs Stores California, L.L.C. in place of the “Doe 1” defendant. (Dkt. 

No. 21.) The request also sought remand of the case to Alameda County Superior Court, 

presumably because amendments to the complaint destroy the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over 

this matter.1

Good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request insofar as it 

seeks remand of the action to state court. The remaining requests may be directed to the state 

court. Thus, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, 

County of Alameda. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

1

The incorrectly filed First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 20) names two individual 

defendants who are identified as California residents. Plaintiff is also apparently a California 

resident. (Dkt. No. 1.) As discussed at the July 7, 2015 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, 

those individuals were identified by first names in the original complaint, which indicated 

plaintiff’s intention to add them as parties as soon as their identities were discovered. As the basis 

for removal of this state-law action was diversity jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 1), the amendment divests 

the Court of jurisdiction over this action, and remand is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 

1447.

Case 4:15-cv-02109-YGR Document 22 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 1