Marie Hernandez v. Starbucks Corporation et al

Filing 29

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF MARIE document 17 and ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILESURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND Docket No. 27 by Judge John F. Walter: Before Plaintiff files a renewed Motion to Remand, the parties shall meet and confer in person on or before June 12, 2017. See order for details. (shb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-3150-JFW (SKx)

Title:

Marie Hernandez -v- Starbucks Corporation, et al.

Date: June 5, 2017

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF
MARIE HERNANDEZ’S MOTION TO REMAND
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1447
[filed 5/12/2017; Docket No. 17];
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND [filed 6/2/2017; Docket No. 27]

On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff Marie Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Remand Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (“Motion to Remand”). On May 22, 2017, Defendants Starbucks Corporation
and Teavana Corporation (“Defendants”) filed their Opposition. On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court
finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for
June 12, 2017 is hereby vacated and the matter taken off calendar. After considering the moving,
opposing, and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows:
Local Rule 7-3 requires that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first
contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the
contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” Local Rule 7-3. Generally, this conference of
counsel “shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.” Id. “If the parties
are unable to reach a resolution which eliminates the necessity for a hearing, counsel for the
moving party shall include in the notice of motion a statement to the following effect: ‘This motion is
made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on (date).’” Id. In
addition, the Court’s Standing Order further provides:

Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Counsel should discuss the issues with sufficient detail so that if a motion is still
necessary, the briefing may be directed to those substantive issues requiring
resolution by the Court. . . . All 7-3 conferences shall take place via a communication
method that, at a minimum, allows all parties to be in realtime communication (letters
and e-mail, for example, do not constitute a proper 7-3 conference). . . . Within three
days of the conference, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating the date,
duration, and communication method of the conference and the participants in the
conference. In addition, the joint statement shall detail the issues discussed and
resolved during the conference and the issues remaining.
Standing Order [Docket No. 9] at ¶ 5(b).
The Court concludes that the parties failed to conduct an adequate Local Rule 7-3
Conference. According to the Joint Statement Regarding the Parties’ Local Rule 7-3 Conference
[Docket No. 12], the parties’ conference lasted a mere twenty minutes. Counsel clearly did not
discuss the issues with sufficient detail such that briefing would be directed to those substantive
issues requiring resolution by the Court. Indeed, Plaintiff submitted new evidence along with her
Reply which required Defendants to file an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Surreply in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. The issues raised in these briefs should have been
raised and discussed during the Local Rule 7-3 Conference. If the parties had done so, the
supplemental briefing now requested would be unnecessary. This Court maintains a firm policy of
reducing unnecessary motion practice and requires strict compliance with Local Rule 7-3 and ¶
5(b) of the Court’s Standing Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is hereby DENIED
without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3 and ¶ 5(b) of the Court’s Standing
Order.
Before Plaintiff files a renewed Motion to Remand, the parties shall meet and confer in
person on or before June 12, 2017. In the unlikely event the parties cannot resolve the issues
raised in the Motion to Remand, within three days of the meet and confer, each party shall file a
declaration setting forth the issues resolved at the conference and those issues that were not
resolved with a detailed explanation of why those issues could not be resolved. If a Motion to
Remand remains necessary, it shall not be filed until two days after each party files the declaration
required by this Order.
In light of the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand without prejudice,
Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr