Geppert
Geppert v. Doe 1
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ROHNO GEPPERT, Case No. 23-cv-03257-SVK
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF ROHNO
v. GEPPERT’S MOTION TO REMAND
DOE 1, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 8 Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Rohno Geppert’s motion to remand this action to state court. Dkt. 8 (the “Motion”). Defendants Does 1 and 2 oppose the Motion. Dkt. 11 (the “Opposition”).1 Plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. 14. All necessary Parties, Does 1, 2 and 3, have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkts. 12-13. After considering the Parties’ briefing, relevant law and the record in this action, and for the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand. I. BACKGROUND The following discussion of background facts is based on the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 1 at Ex. C (the “FAC”)), the truth of which the Court
22 In the Opposition, Defendants refer to counsel initially…