Iraj Khosroabadi v. Mazgani Social Services, Inc. et al

Filing 103

ORDER REMANDING CASE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS EX PARTE REQUEST by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to Orange County Superior Court and DENIES Defendants ex parte request for dismissal and sanctions 102 . Remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-2017-00908101 CU-RI-CXC. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (twdb) Modified on 4/11/2018 (twdb).

Download PDF
1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ) ) ) ) IRAJ KHOSROABADI, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES, INC., ) ) MAHVASH MAZGANI, NAZANIN ) MAZGANI, NEYAZ MAZGANI, ) ) MAHNAZ MOGHADDAM, and ) SHOHREH SHARIFZADEH, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: SACV 17-00644-CJC(KESx) ORDER REMANDING CASE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE REQUEST 23 24 25 On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff Iraj Khosroabadi filed this case in Orange County 26 Superior Court, which was removed to this Court on April 7, 2017. (See Dkt. 1 Ex. 1; 27 Dkt. 1.) On February 14, 2018, the Court granted in part Defendants’ motion for 28 summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s civil RICO cause of action, and declined to exercise -1- 1 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action. (Dkt. 93.) The 2 Court delayed remand in light of Plaintiff’s pending motions to compel discovery, and 3 Magistrate Judge Scott’s request that the Court retain jurisdiction while the Social 4 Security Administration produced information responsive to Plaintiff’s subpoenas. (Dkt. 5 96.) 6 Before the Court is Defendants’ ex parte request for dismissal of the case or for an 7 8 order to show cause why the cause should not be dismissed in light of the parties’ 9 purported settlement. (Dkt. 102.) Defendants represent that the parties entered into a 10 confidential settlement agreement on March 30, 2018, wherein Defendants agreed to pay 11 Plaintiff and Plaintiff agree to execute a stipulation for dismissal of this action with 12 prejudice. (Id. at 2–3.) Defendants did not attach the settlement to their request. (Id.) 13 Defendants state they have paid Plaintiff the agreed upon amount, but Plaintiff’s counsel 14 has refused to stipulate to dismissal of the action. (Id.) Defendants also request sanctions 15 against Plaintiff’s counsel for failure to dismiss the action. (Id. at 3–4.) 16 Given the parties’ dispute, there is no reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction 17 18 over this matter any longer.1 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to Orange 19 County Superior Court and DENIES Defendants’ ex parte request for dismissal and 20 sanctions. 21 DATED: 22 April 11, 2018 __________________________________ 23 CORMAC J. CARNEY 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 1 The Court had previously determined that it would delay remand until April 20, 2018, unless Judge Scott recommended a later date. But, as evidenced by Defendants’ ex parte request, further litigation in federal court is not productive. -2-

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?