Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied without prejudice Plaintiff John Le’s motion to remand. The court found that Plaintiff failed to comply with the prefiling meet-and-confer requirement under Central District of California Local Rule 7-3 and the court’s Standing Order, and vacated the hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should consider and grant Plaintiff's motion to remand when Plaintiff failed to comply with the Central District of California's prefiling meet-and-confer requirement and failed to attach the required certification.
Holdings
- The court may deny a motion without prejudice when the moving party fails to comply with the Central District of California's mandatory prefiling meet-and-confer requirement and fails to provide the certification required by the court's Standing Order.
Key quotations
“Because the Court is not satisfied that any meet and confer took place before the filing of this Motion, the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice.”
Factual background
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand after removal of the action to federal court. The motion did not include the signed certification required by the court's Standing Order, and the court was not satisfied that the parties had met and conferred before the motion was filed.
Procedural history
The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, Defendant opposed it, and Plaintiff filed no reply. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and denied the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with the required prefiling conference and certification requirements.
Remand instructions
The motion to remand was denied without prejudice. If Defendant seeks to renew its motion to remand, Defendant must provide a declaration establishing compliance with C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-3 and the court's Standing Order.