1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MANUEL COVARRUBIAS, as an Case No. 2:21-cv-05037-MCS-PVC individual and on behalf of other 12 similarly situated employees, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 REMAND [15] Plaintiff, 14

15 v.

16

HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE

17 CONSTRUCTION CO., a California corporation, HATHAWAY 18

DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION

19 GROUP, a California Corporation, AND DOES 1-50, inclusive, 20

21 Defendants.

22

23 Plaintiff Manuel Covarrubias moves to remand. Mot., ECF No. 15-1. Defendants 24 oppose, arguing that the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff made no attempt to 25 comply with Local Rule 7-3. Opp’n, ECF No. 20. The Court deems this matter 26 appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacates the hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. 28 1 “[C]ounsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing 2 counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated 3 motion and any potential resolution” at least seven days before filing a motion. C.D. 4 Cal. L.R. 7-3. “The purpose of Local Rule 7-3 is to help parties reach a resolution which 5 eliminates the necessity for a hearing,” which “further[s] judicial economy and the 6 administration of justice.” James R. Glidewell Dental Ceramics, Inc. v. Phila. Indem. 7 Ins. Co., No. 8:16-cv-01155-JLS-E, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189416, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 8 Sept. 12, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Caldera v. J.M. Smucker 9 Co., No. CV 12-4936-GHK (VBKx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183977, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 10 June 3, 2013) (noting that the rule “enables the parties to brief the remaining disputes 11 in a thoughtful, concise, and useful manner” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 12 “Counsel should discuss the issues to a sufficient degree that if a motion is still 13 necessary, the briefing may be directed to those substantive issues requiring resolution 14 by the Court.” See Initial Standing Order § 9(c). 15 Plaintiff fails to provide a statement of compliance with the prefiling conference 16 requirement. It is undisputed that no prefiling conference took place and that Plaintiff 17 did not comply with the spirit or letter of Local Rule 7-3 before filing the Motion. 18 The Court has discretion to deny a motion for failure to comply with the prefiling 19 conference requirement. United States v. Kan-Di-Ki LLC, No. CV 10-965-JST (RZx), 20 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198258, at *1–2 (citing Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 21 1129 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Motion is denied without prejudice to renewal after an 22 adequate prefiling conference of counsel. The parties shall comply with this new 23 deadline, as well as this Court’s and Local Rules. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: August 12, 2021 ________________________________

MARK C. SCARSI

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28