Case 5:21-cv-01838-JWH-SHK Document 20 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:152

J S - 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—

GENERAL

Case No. 5:21-cv-01838-JWH (SHKx) Date April 15, 2022 Title Alex Hernandez, et al. v. Chep Services, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable JOHN W. HOLCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Before the Court is the unopposed motion of Plaintiff Alex Hernandez to remand this action to San Bernardino County Superior Court.1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the papers filed in support,2 and in the absence of any opposition, the Court orders that the Motion is GRANTED, as set forth herein. Hernandez commenced this action in August 2021.3 Defendant Chep Services, LLC removed it to this Court three months later.4 Hernandez filed the instant Motion in December 2021. The next month, the parties stipulated to an extended briefing schedule on the Motion, requesting a deadline for opposing papers of April 7, 2022.5 That same week, the Court issued an Order granting the

1 Pl.’s Mot. to Remand (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 9]. 2 The Court considered the following papers: (1) the Motion (and its attachments); and (2) Pl.’s Notice of Non-Opposition [ECF No. 19]. 3 See Notice of Removal, Ex. A (the “Complaint”) [ECF No. 1-1]. 4 See Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. 5 See Joint Stipulation [ECF No. 11].

CIVIL MINUTES—

Page 1 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

GENERAL

Case 5:21-cv-01838-JWH-SHK Document 20 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:153

parties’ stipulation.6 Despite that extension, neither Chep Services nor any other defendant filed an opposition to the Motion. Under this Court’s Local Rules, the failure to file opposing papers in a timely manner “may be deemed consent to the granting” of a motion. L.R. 7-12. In addition, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the Motion provides reason to doubt that removal was proper in the first instance. Thus, in the absence of opposing papers, there is “doubt as to the right of removal”. Id. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. The Motion is GRANTED. 2. This case is REMANDED to San Bernardino County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 See Order [ECF No. 12].

CIVIL MINUTES—

Page 2 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

GENERAL