1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NADA ADJADJ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01636-CAB-VET

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

13 v. REMAND

14 SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, LLC, [ECF No. 5] et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff Nada Adjadj filed a lawsuit against Defendants Sprouts 18 Farmers Market (“Sprouts”), et al., in the Superior Court of California, County of San 19 Diego. Defendants filed a notice of removal with the Court on Sept. 12, 2024. [ECF No. 20 1.] Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on Oct. 4, 2024. [ECF No. 5.] On Nov. 1, 2024, the 21 Court issued an order to Defendants to show cause for removal as (1) over thirty days 22 lapsed since Defendants’ receipt of the initial pleading, and (2) Defendants had not 23 indicated from what document they first ascertained that the case was removable to sustain 24 removal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (b)(3). [ECF No. 8.] In their response to the order, 25 Defendants failed to satisfy the Court’s request and stated they did not oppose remand. 26 [ECF No. 10 ¶ 7.] 27 28 l Defendants are the removing party—and they bear the burden of demonstrating that 2 ||removal is proper. Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 3 ||2017). As Defendants have failed to establish a basis for removal, the Court GRANTS 4 || Plaintiff's motion to remand to Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case 5 ||No. 37-2024-00024067-CU-PO-CTL. [ECF No. 5.] Further, the Court considered 6 || Plaintiff's request to be awarded costs and attorney fees incurred due to the removal, and 7 || the request is DENIED. 8 9 Itis SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: November 27, 2024 (GR 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28