Stephanie Briest v. Knot Standard

I. INTRODUCTION

18 Plaintiff Stephanie Briest (“Briest”) moves to remand this action to state court 19 based on lack of diversity jurisdiction, and in the alternative, moves for leave to file an 20 amended complaint to join Christine Ouzounian (“Ouzounian”) and Cheyenne Cali 21 (“Cali”) as Defendants. (Mot. to Remand and for Leave to Am. Compl. (“Mot.”) 5, 22 ECF No. 10.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Briest’s Motion 23 to Remand (“Motion”) and, therefore, DENIES as moot Briest’s Motion to Amend.1 24

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

25 Briest filed this action (“Complaint”) against Knot Standard LLC, Knot Standard 26 Los Angeles, Knot Standard, Alicynne Sher (“Sher”), and Liz Wendler (“Wendler”) 27

28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 1 (collectively, “Defendents”) in Superior Court. (Mot., Ex. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 2 10-1.) Briest alleges thirteen causes of action against Defendants related to her 3 employment and “constructive termination.” (Compl. ¶¶ 8–21.) On November 8,…