Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California grants Maria C. Alvarez’s motion to remand after finding that General Motors LLC failed to timely oppose the motion and that removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The court remands the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, declines to award attorney fees, and orders the federal case closed.
Holdings
- The court may deem a defendant's failure to timely respond to a motion as consent to granting the motion under the applicable local rules.
- When the basis for federal jurisdiction is ascertainable from the face of the complaint, removal more than 30 days after service of the complaint is untimely and warrants remand.
- Although 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) permits an award of just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, the court has discretion to deny an award when the requesting party fails to comply with the court's fee-motion requirements.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be remanded because Defendant failed to timely oppose the motion and removed the action more than 30 days after the complaint was served despite the federal jurisdictional basis being ascertainable from the complaint.
- Whether Plaintiff should receive attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (4)
- Shaw v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:25-cv-03035 MWC (MARx), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104336, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2025)(followed)
- Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139 (2005)(followed)
- Motion to Remand, Kunstel v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06859-MCS-SSC (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025), ECF No. 13(mentioned)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…