Opinion
2:21-cv-04239-RGK-RAO
01-21-2022
Silvia Rodriguez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [DE 29]
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 15, 2020, Silvia Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) and Adrian Doe (collectively, “Defendants”) in state court, alleging claims for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff's claims arise from a slip and fall at a Costco store. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) On May 20, 2021, Defendant removed the action to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds (28 U.S.C. § 1332). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case (ECF No. 29). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts that she just learned Defendant Adrian Doe's full, legal name-Adrian Cabrera (“Cabrera”)-on October 8, 2021, when Costco served its initial disclosures. Plaintiff also asserts that Cabrera, like Plaintiff, is a citizen of California. Because there is now no complete diversity between the parties, according to Plaintiff, the Court should remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Court declines to remand this case because Adrian Cabrera is not a defendant in this action.
The Court held a scheduling conference on August 30, 2021, and set September 30, 2021, as the last day to move to amend the complaint or add parties. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff failed to move for leave to amend. Even if the Court would interpret Plaintiff's instant motion as an implicit request to amend her complaint, Plaintiff has failed to establish any good cause to modify the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4). 1
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2