Edward Douille v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND 13 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Accordingly, due to Plaintiff's inexcusable breach of Local Rule 7-3 and gamesmanship, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and VACATES the January 13, 2025 hearing. (ECF No. 13.) (lom)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11

EDWARD DOUILLE,

12
13
14
15

Case ? 2:24-cv-09398-ODW (AGRx)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND [13]

v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On October 30, 2024, Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC removed this

18

lemon-law action from state court based on alleged diversity jurisdiction. (Notice

19

Removal, ECF No. 1.) On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff Edward Douille moved to

20

remand the action back to state court. (Mot. Remand (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF

21

No. 13.) Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion, in part, on the basis that Plaintiff

22

failed to comply with Local Rule 7-3’s pre-filing meet and confer requirements.

23

(Opp’n 1–2, ECF No. 14.) Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection

24

with the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral

25

argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

26

Excluding certain exceptions not relevant here, prior to filing a motion in the

27

Central District of California, Local Rule 7-3 requires that “counsel . . . shall first

28

contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of

1

the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3. This

2

conference shall take place at least seven days prior to the filing of the motion. Id. If

3

the parties are unable to reach a resolution, counsel for the moving party must include

4

in the notice of motion the following statement: “This motion is made following the

5

conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on (date).” Id. Because

6

of the importance of Local Rule 7-3 in furthering judicial economy and the

7

administration of justice, this Court reminds counsel of their meet and confer

8

obligations in the Court’s Standing Order. See Hon. Otis D. Wright, II Standing

9

Order § VII.A.2., https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-otis-d-wright-ii (“Counsel

10

should discuss the issues to a sufficient degree that if a motion is still necessary, the

11

briefing may be directed to those substantive issues requiring resolution by the

12

Court.”). Parties must strictly adhere to the Local Rules of this district, and a district

13

court has the discretion to strike any motion that fails to comply with the Local Rules.

14

Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012);

15

C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-4 (“The Court may decline to consider a motion unless it meets the

16

requirements of L.R. 7-3 through 7-8.”).

17

Plaintiff asserts that he “attempted to telephonically meet and confer prior to the

18

filing of this Motion” by sending an email to Defense counsel on November 26, 2024,

19

“inquiring as to availability,” and leaving detailed voicemails “on November 26

20

and 27, 2024.”

21

telephone by November 27, 2024, Plaintiff construed the lack of immediate response

22

as an “impasse,” and filed the Motion. (Id.)

(Notice Mot. 2, ECF No. 13.)

When Defense counsel did not

23

Plaintiff’s “attempt” to meet and confer does not come close to compliance with

24

the Court’s rules, and the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that it does

25

particularly troubling. Plaintiff waited until one day before filing the Motion to

26

attempt to contact Defense counsel, which by itself violates the requirement to meet

27

and confer at least seven days before filing. Further, Plaintiff waited until the days

28

immediately preceding a national holiday, during a week when many businesses are

2

1

closed. This smacks of gamesmanship and litigation by ambush, and will not be

2

tolerated in this Court.

3

Local Rule 7-3’s direction that the parties meet and confer to discuss the

4

substance and potential resolution of an anticipated motion is not a mere suggestion to

5

be cavalierly set aside when its dictates are inconvenient. Courts in this district have

6

denied or struck motions based on a party’s failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3.

7

See, e.g., Boedeker v. Farley, No. 8:19-cv-02443-DOC (JDEx), 2020 WL 2536969,

8

at *1 (“Because Defendants inexcusably breached Local Rule 7-3, the Court hereby

9

denies Defendants’ Motion.”); R.H. v. City of San Bernadino, No. 5:18-cv-01232-JLS

10

(KKx), 2019 WL 10744836, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019) (“Accordingly, because

11

Defendants failed to comply with Local Rule 7-3, the Court STRIKES both

12

Motions . . . and vacates the . . . hearing date.”).

13

consequences appropriate here.

The Court finds similar

14

Accordingly, due to Plaintiff’s inexcusable breach of Local Rule 7-3 and

15

gamesmanship, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and VACATES the

16

January 13, 2025 hearing.

17

representations here, the parties are cautioned that the Court will require strict

18

compliance with the Local Rules and the Rules of this Court. The parties are advised

19

to review the Rules carefully and thoroughly before proceeding in this action.

(ECF No. 13.)

Considering Plaintiff’s counsel’s

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

January 6, 2025

24
25
26
27

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

3