Jesson Calloway v. Richman Property Services, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaOctober 15, 20242:24-cv-04232California3,631 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

18 On April 15, 2024, Plaintiffs Jesson Calloway, Joseph Garcia, Antoinette 19 Spoliansky, Eric Lattimore, Spencer Paskach, Sambidhan Khaniya, and Upasana 20 Pandey initiated this action against Defendants The Richman Group of California, 21 LLC (“Richman Group”) and DOES through for violation of California’s 22 Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”) in the Superior Court of 23 California. (Notice Removal (“NOR”) Ex. A (“Complaint” or “Compl.”), ECF 24 Nos. 1, 1-1.) On April 29, 2024, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to add Richman 25 Property Services, Inc. (“Richman”) as a Defendant, and dismissed Richman Group 26 from the action. (NOR Ex. A 34–38.) On May 21, 2024, Richman removed this 27 action to federal court based on alleged diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 1 § 1332(a). (NOR ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs now move to remand. (Mot. Remand (“Motion” or 2 “Mot.”), ECF No. 20.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plainitffs’ Motion 3 and REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.1 II. BACKGROUND At some point during 2023 and 2024, each…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.