Daniel Ramirez v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Moye □□ peony 4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 DANIEL RAMIREZ, ) Case No. CV 19-5305 FMO (RAOx) " Plaintiff, ) V. ) ORDER Re: MOTION TO REMAND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

14] INC., et al. ) Defendants. 16 Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff Daniel Ramirez’s (“plaintiff’) Motion to Remand and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Dkt. 27, “Motion”), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; 20 || Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), and concludes as follows. BACKGROUND The instant case was first removed to this court nearly two years ago. See Ramirez v. Samsung Electronics Am., Inc., Case No. 17-7684 FMO (RAOx) (C.D. Cal. 2017) (“Ramirez |”). 25 || Ramirez involved a lawsuit between…