Opinion
21-cv-00031-H-LL
10-25-2021
ROBERT MAAG, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
[DOC. NO. 36.]
MARILYN L. HUFF, DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff Robert Maag filed a putative class action against Defendant U.S. Bank, National Association in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal ¶ 5.) On January 8, 2021, Defendant U.S. Bank, National Association removed the action from state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Id. ¶ 1.) In the operative complaint, the third amended complaint, Plaintiff Maag alleges against Defendant U.S. Bank a single claim for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), California Civil Code § 1798.150 et seq. (Doc. No. 51, TAC ¶¶ 45-53.)
On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (Doc. No. 36.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because he lacks Article III standing as to his CCPA claim, and there is no jurisdiction under CAFA. (Id at 10-25.) On October 21, 2021, Defendant U.S. Bank filed a response stating that it does not oppose Plaintiffs motion to remand. (Doc. No. 49.) As such, the Court grants Plaintiffs motion to remand. The Court remands the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2