Penning v. Companies
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:26-cv-04340
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Penning v. Albertsons, Judge Corley remanded the class action to state court because federal jurisdiction was lacking after Penning lacked Article III standing.
The action brought by Stacy Penning against Albertsons Companies, Inc. was returned to Contra Costa County Superior Court; the federal court did not decide the merits of the claims.
What happened
Stacy Penning brought a proposed class action against Albertsons Companies, Inc., alleging that trackers were installed on visitors’ browsers at andronicos.com in violation of federal and California privacy laws. She filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, and Albertsons removed the case to federal court.
The federal court questioned whether Penning had suffered a concrete injury required for federal standing. Albertsons agreed that she lacked standing but asked the court to dismiss the case instead of sending it back to state court.
The court held that federal law required remand because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and Albertsons had not shown that dismissal in state court was absolutely certain. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley therefore remanded the action to Contra Costa County Superior Court.
The detailed version
- Penning v. Companies · No. 3:26-cv-04340
- Kandis Westmore
- Aug. 26, 2026
Background
Stacy Penning filed a putative class action against Albertsons Companies, Inc. The complaint alleged that Albertsons installed third-party trackers on individuals’ internet browsers when they visited www.andronicos.com. Penning asserted a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, and claims under various California laws.
Penning initially filed the action in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Albertsons removed it to federal court, relying on federal-question jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act.
Jurisdiction and Remand
After reviewing the complaint, the court ordered Albertsons to explain why the action should not be returned to state court. The court was concerned that Penning had not alleged facts supporting an inference that she suffered a concrete injury, as required for standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Albertsons’s response agreed that Penning lacked Article III standing but asked the court to dismiss the action rather than remand it. The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires a federal court to remand a removed case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction before final judgment. The court noted a narrow exception allowing dismissal instead of remand when it is absolutely certain that the state court would dismiss the action. The court found that Albertsons had not shown that level of certainty.
Disposition
The court remanded the action to the Contra Costa County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not decide whether Penning’s privacy-law claims had merit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.