Emil R. Hartoonian v. Tigris Enterprises, LLC et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order GRANTING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 9) by Judge Dale S. Fischer granting 9 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: The motion to remand is GRANTED. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Lo s Angeles. The request for fees is DENIED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction. The Court finds that an award of fees against a pro se for procedural defects in removal is not warranted in this situation. (see document for further details) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (bm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
JS 6
Case No.
Title

Date

CV 17-1732 DSF (Ex)

4/20/17

Emil R. Hartoonian v. Tigris Enterprises, LLC, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order GRANTING Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 9)

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case. Opposition to the motion was due
April 17, 2017. The removing defendant, Johnny Mansour, pro se, has not responded to
the motion. 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 May 8, 2017 is removed
from the Court’s calendar.
Plaintiff’s arguments with respect to subject matter jurisdiction are not persuasive.
The complaint, on its face, states a claim for a violation of federal law. See Pl. Ex. A at
12-13. However, the Court sees no reason to reject Plaintiff’s arguments regarding
procedural deficiencies in the removal, especially given the lack of opposition.
The motion to remand is GRANTED. The case is remanded to the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles. The request for fees is DENIED. The Court has
subject matter jurisdiction. The Court finds that an award of fees against a pro se for
procedural defects in removal is not warranted in this situation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 1