Kastler

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANNE KASTLER, Case No. 19-cv-02411-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON

9 Vv. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 10 OH MY GREEN, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 24 11 Defendant. 12

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand. See Dkt. No. 12. Although 14 || Plaintiff initially argued that Defendant failed to establish the diversity or the amount in 3 15 controversy requirements under CAFA, Plaintiff ultimately argued in her reply brief that even if a 16 || Defendant satisfied both requirements, the local controversy and home-state controversy 3 17 || exceptions require that the Court remand the case to state court. Dkt. Nos. 12 at 9-10, 24 at 6-7. 18 || Although arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are ordinarily deemed waived, see 19 Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court has “a duty to establish subject 20 ||…