Castillo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REBECA CASTILLO, Case No. 24-cv-03898-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. REMAND AND AWARDING

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendant.

The motion to remand is granted. Taking as true the complaint’s allegation that Castillo will never purchase the products again—as is required at this stage in the litigation—it is obvious that she does not have standing to seek injunctive relief, which is all she asks for. See Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 971 (9th Cir. 2018). There are no facts in the record that call into question her stated intent. If Castillo ultimately admits that she does in fact intend to purchase the products again, Hain Celestial can remove again at that time (as Castillo concedes). See Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 781 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015). Castillo’s request for attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is granted. Because it is clear that Castillo does not have standing, Hain Celestial did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal. It argues, citing Tailford v. Experian…