Henry Nelson v. Cort Business Services Corporation

I. INTRODUCTION

19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Henry Nelson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for remand. 20 (Dkt. No. 28.) Defendant CORT Business Services Corporation (“Defendant”) filed 21 an opposition1 to Plaintiff’s motion for remand, and Plaintiff filed a reply in support of

23 1 Defendant’s opposition fails to comply with the Court’s Standing Order in numerous respects, including by failing to include Times New Roman font of no less than 14 point or Courier font of no less than 12 point and by failing to provide Westlaw citations for unreported cases. (See Dkt. No. 13 at 4–5.) “Although the Court will consider this [opposition] despite the inability or unwillingness of [Defendant’s] 26 counsel to follow the Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Order, counsel is warned that [future] failure to follow the Court’s rules will result in sanctions.” See Stephens v. Nordstrom, Inc., CV 17-5872 DSF (KSx), 2018 WL 7143623, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2018) (emphasis in original). his motion for remand. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 37.) The Court found this matter suitable for decision without oral argument and took Plaintiff’s motion under submission. (Dkt. No. 40.) For the…