Gregory Plotkin v. Swift Transportation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGORY PLOTKIN, Case No. CV 21-05872 AB (MARx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION TO REMAND [11]; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS [9]
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORATION
COMPANY; MICHAEL A. CASTANEDA; and DOES 1 through 17 25, inclusive, Defendants.
20 Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Plotkin’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand. 21 (“Motion to Remand,” Dkt. No. 11.) Defendant Swift Transportation (“Defendant 22 Swift”) opposed, (“Remand Opp’n,” Dkt. No. 12). Plaintiff did not reply. Also 23 before the Court is Defendant Swift’s Motion to Dismiss. (“Motion to Dismiss,” Dkt. 24 No. 9.) Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion to Dismiss. The Court deems this matter 25 appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacates the hearing scheduled for 26 September 17, 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; LR 7-15. For the following reasons, 27 the Court DENIES the Motion to Remand and GRANTS the Motion to…