Opinion
1:20-cv-00578-NONE-SKO
07-13-2021
CAROLINA ZAMORA MAGANA, Plaintiff, v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY dba ADM GOLDEN PEANUT, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND
(DOC. NO. 35)
Plaintiff Carolina Zamora Magana initiated this action in San Francisco County Superior Court on February 21, 2020. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 3.) On March 30, 2020, defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California based upon diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 at 4-7.) The action was then transferred to this court pursuant to stipulation on April 23, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 13 & 14.)
On March 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 21.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(a).
On June 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted, and, upon filing of an amended complaint, that the case be remanded to the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 35.) The parties were provided until June 30, 2021, in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 35.) No. objections were filed by either party.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis, and adopts them with the modification that the action shall be remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court, where the action was originally filed.
See LimitNone LLC v. Google Inc., No. C 09-00412 JW, 2009 WL 10695687, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2009) (citing Allied Signal Recovery Trust v. Allied Signal Inc., 298 F.3d 263, 270 (3d Cir. 2002) (“Remand means ‘send back.' It does not mean ‘send elsewhere.”')). Accord Bloom v. Barry, 755 F.2d 356, 358 (3d Cir. 1985) (“The only remand contemplated by the removal statute is a remand ‘to the State court from which it was removed.'”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)).
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 35) are ADOPTED IN PART as modified;
2. Plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 21) is granted;
3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that joins Elizabeth Hurtado as a defendant and adds a claim against her for invasion of privacy by means of intrusion into private affairs within seven days of the date of this order; and
4. Because the joinder of the additional defendant in the amended complaint destroys diversity jurisdiction, following the filing of the amended complaint this action shall be remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court and the Clerk of Court shall be directed to close this case at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.