Filed: Jul. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed May 22, 2018, the Court ordered defendant to show cause why the above-titled action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before the Court is defendant's Response, filed June 1, 2018, and plaintiffs' Reply, filed June 15, 2018. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court, for the reasons stated in its May 22 order and in plaintiffs' Reply
Summary: ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed May 22, 2018, the Court ordered defendant to show cause why the above-titled action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before the Court is defendant's Response, filed June 1, 2018, and plaintiffs' Reply, filed June 15, 2018. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court, for the reasons stated in its May 22 order and in plaintiffs' Reply,..
More
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
By order filed May 22, 2018, the Court ordered defendant to show cause why the above-titled action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before the Court is defendant's Response, filed June 1, 2018, and plaintiffs' Reply, filed June 15, 2018.
Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court, for the reasons stated in its May 22 order and in plaintiffs' Reply, finds plaintiffs lack standing under Article III, and, consequently, the instant action "was not properly removed." See Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over removed complaint that "lack[s] a named plaintiff with Article III standing"); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (providing "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded").
Accordingly, pursuant to § 1447(c), the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Francisco.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
