Denise M. Beason et al v. Manor Care of Hemet CA, LLC et al

Filing 18

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for remand to state court 15 due to Defendant's failure to file an opposition and because the additional Defendants deprives the Court of diversity jurisdiction. The 8/18/2017 hearing is VACATED. Case Remanded to Riverside Superior Court, Case No. MCC1700251. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. Date ED CV 17-1205 DMG (SPx) Title Denise M. Beason v. Manor Care of Hemet, CA, LLC, et al. Present: The Honorable REMAND / JS-6 August 1, 2017 Page 1 of 1 DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE KANE TIEN Deputy Clerk NOT REPORTED Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [15] On March 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Denise M. Beason, by and through her successor-ininterest (the “Decedent”), and Ronald A. Beason, individually, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in Riverside County Superior Court against Defendant Manor Care of Hemet, CA, LLC dba Manorcare Health Serivces-Hemet (“Manor Care”). [Doc. # 1-1.] Service was executed on May 18, 2017. [Doc. # 1-1 at 35.] On June 19, 2017, Manor Care removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. # 1.] On July 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (“FAC”), which named new parties, Honeyflower Holdings, LLC dba Arlington Gardens Care Center (“Arlington”) and Gurprit Dhaliwal, as defendants. [Doc. # 13.] The newly added Defendants appear to be California citizens. FAC at ¶¶ 3, 5, 8. On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand (“MTR”). [Doc. # 15.] A hearing is set on the MTR for August 18, 2017. Id. Defendants’ opposition to the MTR was due no later than Friday, July 28, 2017. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (opposition due at least 21 days before the date of the hearing). Defendants have not filed an opposition and the time to do so has now passed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for remand to state court due to Defendant’s failure to file an opposition and because the additional Defendants deprives the Court of diversity jurisdiction. See Oakley, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“[T]he Local Rules permit the Court [to] deem failure to oppose as consent to the granting of the motion.”) (citing L.R. 7-12); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (diversity subject matter jurisdiction defined), 1447(c), (e) (post-removal remand appropriate where court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction). The August 18, 2017 hearing is VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?