KGV Easy Leasing, Inc. v. NHIC Corporation et al
Filing
13
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT held before Judge Dale S. Fischer: Defendants Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(5) was filed on October 6, 2008, asserting, inter alia, that this Co urt lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Opposition was due on October 27, 2008. No Opposition was filed. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for November 10, 2008 is removed from the Courts calendar. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (yl)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL JS 6
Case No. Title
CV 08-6374 DSF (RZx)
Date
11/3/08
KGV Easy Leasing, Inc. v. NHIC Corporation et al. DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge Not Present Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present
Present: The Honorable
Debra Plato Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order Remanding Action to State Court
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(5) was filed on October 6, 2008, asserting, inter alia, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Opposition was due on October 27, 2008. No Opposition was filed. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for November 10, 2008 is removed from the Court's calendar. The Court deems the lack of opposition to be consent to the Motion to Dismiss. Local Rule 7-12; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1993). However, Plaintiff attempted to file a motion to remand and motion to amend its complaint to "clarify" that its claims were state claims rather than federal claims. The motions were rejected because they were not electronically filed. Plaintiff electronically filed the Motion to Remand on October 31, 2008. The Court also independently concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In the unlikely event that plaintiff can state a claim under state law, the Court remands, rather than dismisses, the action. "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This action is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL JS 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (12/02)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
