From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sangervasi v. Target Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 9, 2011
No. C10-4810 BZ (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011)

Opinion

No. C10-4810 BZ.

February 9, 2011


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND


Construing removal jurisdiction strictly, I find that defendants have failed to establish that Amy Dabner was named as a "sham defendant." I find that plaintiff can amend her complaint to state a cause of action against Ms. Dabner under the settled law of California. See for example Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th, 686, 709 (2009); Niami v. Federal Express Print Services, Inc., 2010 WL 958045 (N.D.Ca 2010). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for remand is GRANTED. The Clerk shall transfer the file to the Marin County Superior Court. The Court no longer having jurisdiction, defendant's motion to dismiss is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

Dated: February 9, 2011


Summaries of

Sangervasi v. Target Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 9, 2011
No. C10-4810 BZ (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011)
Case details for

Sangervasi v. Target Corporation

Case Details

Full title:CAROLYN SANGERVASI, Plaintiff(s), v. TARGET CORPORATION, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Feb 9, 2011

Citations

No. C10-4810 BZ (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011)