Case 2:22-cv-02256-SVW-PVC Document 25 Filed 06/21/22 Pagelof4 Page ID #:454

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT J S 6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-2256-SVW-AJW Date June 21, 2022 Title Lois O’Brien v. Ray Exley et al.

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND [11] Before the Court is an unopposed motion to remand filed by Petitioner Lois O’Brien. Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to a motion not later than twenty-one days before the designated hearing date. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. A party that does not file an opposition may be deemed to consent to the granting of the motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on failure to oppose motion as required by local rules). Before granting a motion as unopposed pursuant to a local rule, courts consider: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of cases, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic measures. Jd. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Explicit findings with respect to these factors are not required.” Ismail v. Cty. of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; accord, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). In Ghazaii, the Ninth Circuit found these factors satisfied where the plaintiff received notice of the motion and had ample opportunity to respond yet failed to do so. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54; see also Masi v. J&J Maint., Inc., No. 19-CV-00121-KJM (EFB), 2019 WL 5079550, at *2 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2019) (noting that “[c]ourts have considered [the Ghazali] factors in the context of an unopposed motion to remand”). Here, like in Ghazali, Respondent received notice of the motion and had ample opportunity to respond. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. Moreover, the balance of the above factors weighs in favor of granting Petitioner’s motion. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED.

Initials of Preparer

PMC

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 4

Case 2:22-cv-02256-SVW-PVC Document 25 Filed 06/21/22 Page2of4 Page ID #:455

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-2256-SVW-AJW Date June 21,2022 Title Lois O’Brien v. Ray Exley et al.

Petitioner also seeks an award of attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In Martin, the Supreme Court held that “the standard for awarding fees should turn on the reasonableness of the removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). As the Court put it, “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.” Jd. Having reviewed Petitioner’s motion, the Court concludes that removal was objectively unreasonable.