Davis et al v. Aramark Corporation et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Remand to State Court; this case is remanded to Coconino County Superior Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 scheduling conference set for September 20, 2017, is vacated. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/12/17. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Remand Letter) (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gayla Davis, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-08154-PCT-JAT

Aramark Corporation, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to state court.

16

(Doc. 16).

In her motion, Plaintiff argues the amount in controversy required for

17

diversity jurisdiction was not established by the removing Defendants in this case. (Id.).

18

The deadline for Defendants to respond to the motion to remand has run, and

19

Defendants did not file a timely response to the motion. (See Local Rule Civil 7.2(c)).

20

Pursuant to Local Rule Civil 7.2(i), the Court deems the failure to timely respond to the

21

motion to be consent to the motion being granted (specifically, a concession that the

22

amount in controversy was not established).1

23

Therefore,

24

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand (Doc. 16) is granted; this case is

25
26

remanded to Coconino County Superior Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 scheduling conference set for

27
1

28

As further evidence that the parties are in agreement that they are returning to
state court, the parties failed to file their proposed case management plan for the
September 20, 2017 Rule 16 conference, which was due last Friday (September 8, 2017).

1
2

September 20, 2017, is vacated.
Dated this 12th day of September, 2017.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-