Lindquist

Lindquist v. Target Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 18, 20204:19-cv-08029California799 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CLARE LINDQUIST, Case No. 19-cv-08029-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND v. Re: Dkt. No.

TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.

Before the Court is the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Clare Lindquist. Dkt. Nos. 8 (“Mot.”), 9 (“Opp.”), 10 (“Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court REMANDS this entire action to state court.1 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings a claim alleging general negligence and premises liability against Defendant Target Corporation (“Target” or “Corporation”) and Does 1–10. Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Superior Court of California in the County of Marin on November 8, 2018. Dkt. No. 1-3 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff completed service of the Complaint on November 14, 2018. See Dkt. No. 8-1, Ex. 2. On December 27, 2018, Target served a request for statement of damages under California Civil Code section 425.11, asking Plaintiff to “provide a statement…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.