Marc Carlis v. Beijing Pu Luo Media Co. ( 2020 )

O 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 MARC CARLIS, Case № 2:20-cv-3451-ODW (Ex) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED v. MOTION TO REMAND [7] 14 15 BEIJING PU LUO MEDIA Co. et al., 16 Defendant. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Marc Carlis initiated this breach of contract action in the Superior 20 Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on March 10, 2020. (Notice of Removal 21 ¶ 1, ECF No. 1; see Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Defendant 22 removed the action to this Court on April 4, 2020, based on federal question 23 jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 15–36.) 24 On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff moved to remand the case (“Motion”), served the 25 Motion to Defendant by mail, and met and conferred with Defendant on April 27, 26 2020. (See Mot. to Remand (“Mot.”) 2, 15, ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff noticed the hearing 27 on the Motion on June 1, 2020. Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Defendant’s 28 opposition was due no later than May 11, 2020. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (requiring 1 oppositions to be filed no later than twenty-one days before the motion hearing). 2 However, to date, Defendant has filed no opposition. For the reasons that follow, the 3 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.1 4 II. DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE WARRANTS DISMISSAL 5 Central District of California Local Rule 7-12 provides that the Court “may 6 decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline 7 set by order or local rule.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The failure to file [a responsive 8 document], or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the 9 granting or denial of the motion . . . .”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 10 1995) (affirming dismissal on the basis of unopposed motion pursuant to local rule). 11 Plaintiff moves to remand this action. (See Mot.) Prior to granting a motion as 12 unopposed pursuant to a local rule, courts must weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in 13 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 14 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 15 o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d 16 at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)); Deuschel 17 v. UC Regents Med. Centers UC Los Angeles, No. 2:18-CV-09616-ODW-PLAx, 2019 18 WL 1057046, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019). “Explicit findings with respect to these 19 factors are not required.” Ismail v. Cty. of Orange, SACV 10-00901 VBF (AJW), 20 2012 WL 12964893, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 21 1424; accord, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 129 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. 22 denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit found these factors 23 satisfied where the plaintiff received notice of the motion, had “ample time to 24 respond,” yet failed to do so. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. 25 Here, Plaintiff moved to remand the matter and set the hearing date on June 1, 26 2020, thirty-five days after filing, greater than the time required under the Local 27 28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 || Rules. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 6-1 (requiring a motion to be filed twenty-eight days before 2 || the date set for the hearing). Plaintiff served the Motion on Defendant via mail. (See 3 | Mot. 15.) Thus, Defendant had notice of the Motion and ample opportunity to 4|| respond. However, to date Defendant failed to oppose or otherwise respond. 5 || Defendant removed this matter about two weeks before the Motion was filed and 6 || Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice on this Motion. As Defendant offers no 7 || excuse for failing to oppose, nor has Defendant sought an extension of time or any 8 | other relief, the Court construes the failure to oppose the Motion as consent to the 9 || Court granting it. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and Ghazali, the Court 10 | GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. 1] Ht. CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 13 | (ECF No. 7) and REMANDS the case to Los Angeles Superior Court, 111 N. Hill St. 14 | Los Angeles, CA 90012. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 May 26, 2020 “ 18 wus i Gieddioid 30 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28