Robert Gonzales and Randy Hall v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT GONZALES and RANDY HALL, individuals, 12 No. 2:24-cv-02810-TLN-JDP Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. ORDER HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and DOES 1 15 through 100, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Robert Gonzales (“Gonzales”) and Randy 20 Hall’s (“Hall”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Amend (ECF No. 6) and Motion to Remand 21 (ECF No. 8). Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant” or “Home Depot”) filed an opposition to 22 both of Plaintiffs’ motions. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Plaintiffs filed replies.1 (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) For 23 the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and GRANTS 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. 25

26 1 The Court notes Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s opposition papers were improperly served and should be disregarded. (ECF No. 18 at 4–5; ECF No. 19 at 5–6.) However, Plaintiffs 27 argument is underdeveloped and lacks factual details. As such, the Court declines to address this argument. 28 1 …