Denise M. Beason et al v. Manor Care of Hemet CA, LLC et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
1 of 1
DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 
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
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.
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?