Opinion
24-cv-02078-VKD
06-27-2024
MARILYN PELZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET; DOES 1 to 100, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REMAND RE: DKT. NOS. 7, 8
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 11, 2024, the Court issued an interim order on plaintiffs' pending motion for remand, finding that remand is not appropriate “at this time based on plaintiffs' pleading regarding the unnamed Doe defendant.” Dkt. No. 14 at 4. The record indicates that there is complete diversity of citizenship with respect to all parties currently named in plaintiffs' complaint. See Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 2-1. There is no indication that the parties dispute that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met; defendant has not advised that it seeks expedited discovery on that issue. See Dkt. No. 14 at 6. Accordingly, as the present record indicates that there is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, plaintiffs' pending motion for remand is denied.
If plaintiffs wish to amend the complaint to name another defendant in place of or in addition to the unnamed Doe defendants, they shall file an appropriate motion for leave to amend or a stipulation regarding amendment no later than July 8, 2024. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15; Civil L.R. 10-1, 7-12.
IT IS SO ORDERED.