Madel Grageola v. Walmart Associates, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MADEL GRAGEOLA, Case No. 5:23-cv-02210-FLA (SHKx)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
v. MOTION TO REMAND [DKT 10]
AND DISCHARGING ORDER TO
WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., SHOW CAUSE [DKT. 23]
et al., Defendants.
17 RULING Before the court is Plaintiff Madel Grageola’s (“Plaintiff” or “Grageola”) Motion to Remand (“Motion”). Dkt. 10 (“Mot.”); Dkt. 10-1 (“Mot. Br.”). Defendants Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Walmart Inc. (collectively, the “Walmart Defendants”) oppose the Motion. Dkt. 14 (“Opp’n”). On January 4, 2024, the court found this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for January 5, 2024. Dkt. 22; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons stated herein, the court DENIES the Motion in its entirety and DISMISSES Defendant Briana Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) from the action as a sham defendant. The July 25,…