Singh

Singh v. AutoZone Parts, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 21, 20242:23-cv-01379California634 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 AMANDEEP SINGH, No. 2:23-cv-01379-TLN-CSK

Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., et al., Defendants.

14 15 16 On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff Amandeep Singh initiated this action against Defendant Rauch-Milliken International Inc. (“RMI”), Defendant AutoZone Parts, Inc.’s (“AutoZone”), and nine other Defendants. On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging the following four causes of action against RMI and AutoZone: (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (3) negligent infliction of emotion distress (“NIED”); and (4) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (“RICO”). (ECF No. 43.) From the FAC, it is unclear whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against RMI and AutoZone for negligence, IIED, and NIED. For the reasons set forth below, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause regarding the Court’s…

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.