Victor Mendoza v. Staples, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 12 by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell.the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why Individual Defendants' motion should not be granted. An appropriate response to this Order will include reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition. Alternatively, Plaintiff shall notify the Court that he does not oppose the motion. Plaintiff's response to this Order shall be filed by no later than Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07837 (BRO) (FFMx)

Title

VICTOR MENDOZA V. STAPLES, INC. ET AL.

Date

December 15, 2014

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED [12]
Plaintiff Victor Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit on July 10, 2014 in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (See Compl.) Defendants Staples,
Inc. and Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc., along with the four individual defendants
named in the Complaint, removed the matter to this Court on October 8, 2014. (Dkt. No.
1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on October 31, 2014. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Court
denied the motion on November 24, 2014. (Dkt. No. 17.) In its order denying Plaintiff’s
remand motion, the Court explained that the matter was properly removed because the
Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, the Court concluded that the
four individual defendants named in this matter—Mario Gutierrez, Ricky Millan, Adrian
Martinez, and Larry Terrazas (collectively, “Individual Defendants”)—are “sham”
defendants whose citizenship may be disregarded for diversity jurisdiction purposes. (Id.
at 4–10.)
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Individual Defendants on
October 15, 2014. (Dkt. No. 12.) Individual Defendants seek to dismiss all of the claims
alleged against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The hearing
on this motion is set for Monday, December 22, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.
Under the Court’s Local Rule 7-9, a party must oppose a motion at least twentyone (21) days prior to the scheduled hearing date. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s opposition, if any, was due no later than December 1, 2014. As of this date,
Plaintiff has not opposed Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-07837 (BRO) (FFMx)

Title

VICTOR MENDOZA V. STAPLES, INC. ET AL.

Date

December 15, 2014

Local Rule 7-12 provides that a party’s failure to oppose “may be deemed consent
to the granting . . . of the motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. The Court recognizes that its
order denying Plaintiff’s remand motion concluded that the Complaint fails to state a
claim against any of the Individual Defendants, and that this failure “is obvious according
to well-settled California law.” (Dkt. No. 17 at 7.) Nevertheless, the Court specified that
the remand order “does not affect the hearing set for December 22, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.” on
Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Id. at 12.)
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why Individual
Defendants’ motion should not be granted. An appropriate response to this Order will
include reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition.
Alternatively, Plaintiff shall notify the Court that he does not oppose the motion.
Plaintiff’s response to this Order shall be filed by no later than Tuesday, December 16,
at 5:00 p.m.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

rf

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 2