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).

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-