O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 GRISELDA ESTALA, Case № 2:19-cv-04536-ODW (JCx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED 14 v. MOTION TO REMAND [27] AND

DENYING AS MOOT

15 TARGET CORPORATION, et al., DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 16 SUMMARY JUDGMENT [26] Defendants. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Griselda Estala initiated this slip and fall action in the Superior Court 20 of California, County of Los Angeles, on February 27, 2019. (Notice of Removal ¶ 1, 21 ECF No. 1; see Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1.) Defendant Target 22 Corporation (“Target”) removed the action to this Court on May 24, 2019, based on 23 diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 4–10.) 24 On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff moved to remand the case (“Motion”) after emailing 25 Defendants on May 5, 2020, indicating her intention to bring the motion. (See Mot. to 26 Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 27; Decl. of Soheil Bahari ¶ 5, ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff 27 noticed the hearing on the Motion for June 15, 2020. Thus, pursuant to Local 28 Rule 7-9, any opposition was due no later than May 22, 2020. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 1 (requiring oppositions to be filed no later than twenty-one days before the motion 2 hearing); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (noting that, when the last day is a Saturday, 3 Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the next business day). 4 However, to date, Defendants have filed no opposition. For the reasons that follow, 5 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.1 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Central District of California Local Rule 7-12 provides that the Court “may 8 decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline 9 set by order or local rule.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The failure to file [a responsive 10 document], or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the 11 granting or denial of the motion . . . .”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 12 1995) (affirming dismissal on the basis of unopposed motion pursuant to local rule). 13 Plaintiff moves to remand this action. (See Mot.) Prior to granting a motion as 14 unopposed pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in 15 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 16 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 17 o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d 18 at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)); Deuschel 19 v. UC Regents Med. Centers UC Los Angeles, No. 2:18-CV-09616-ODW-PLAx, 2019 20 WL 1057046, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019). “Explicit findings with respect to these 21 factors are not required.” Ismail v. Cty. of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 22 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 23 1424; accord, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. 24 denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit found these factors 25 satisfied where the plaintiff received notice of the motion, had “ample time to 26 respond,” yet failed to do so. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. 27 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deems the 28 matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing on June 15, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. 1 Here, Plaintiff moved to remand the matter on May 12, 2020, and set the 2 hearing date on June 15, 2020, thirty-four days after filing. Plaintiff notified 3 Defendants of its intent to file the Motion on May 5, 2020. (Decl. of Soheil Bahari 4 ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendants had notice of the Motion and ample opportunity to respond. 5 However, to date Defendants failed to oppose or otherwise respond. Defendant Target 6 filed its Motion for Summary Judgment one day before Plaintiff provided Defendants 7 with notice of this Motion. (See Mot. for Summ. J, ECF No. 26.) This demonstrates 8 that Defendants have been involved in the case and thus received electronic notices 9 and are active in the case so have no excuse for failing to respond. As to the merits of 10 Plaintiff’s remand Motion, Plaintiff correctly asserts that this Court no longer has 11 jurisdiction over this matter. This case was removed on the basis of diversity 12 jurisdiction, but since the removal, non-diverse parties were added without opposition 13 to the complaint. (See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3–10; First. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF 14 No. 17; Answer of Defendants Westfield Group & Culver City Mall LLC, ECF 15 No. 21.) As Defendants do not oppose the Motion or assert that the non-diverse 16 parties should not have been joined, the Court finds that remand is necessary. 28 17 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 18 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); see Morris v. 19 Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001). 20 Defendants were previously engaged in this matter and offer no excuse for 21 failing to oppose, nor have they sought an extension of time or any other relief. Thus, 22 the Court construes the failure to oppose the Motion as consent to the Court granting 23 it. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and Ghazali, the Court GRANTS 24 Plaintiff’s Motion. 25 26 27 28 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 3 || (ECF No. 27) and REMANDS the case to Los Angeles Superior Court, 111 N. Hill 4] St. Los Angeles, CA 90012, case number 19STCV06733. The Court further DENIES 5 || without prejudice Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as moot. (ECF 6 || No. 26.) 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 June 3, 2020 1 Xue

3 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28