Valencia v. Sharp Electronics Corporation et al

Filing 23

ORDER declining to consider 22 Statement filed by Jeremy Valencia. Signed by Judge James Ware on March 5, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 11-06177 JW

Jeremy Valencia,

11

ORDER DECLINING TO CONSIDER
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR REMAND
AS IMPROPERLY FILED

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Sharp Elecs. Corp., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

/

15
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Remand. (Docket Item No. 22.) In his
16
Request, Plaintiff contends that “justice . . . requires [the Court] to recognize that it has no subject
17
matter jurisdiction over this matter and [that] the [Court] must relinquish this case to the California
18
Superior Court forthwith, so that justice will not be further delayed.” (Id. at 2.)
19
The Civil Local Rules state that “[a]ny written request to the Court for an order must be
20
presented” to the Court by one of a specified number of means, including a “[d]uly noticed motion
21
pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-2.” Civ. L.R. 7-1(a). The Local Rules also state that “[e]xcept as otherwise
22
ordered or permitted by the assigned Judge or [the Local Rules], and except for motions made
23
during the course of a trial or hearing, all motions must be filed, served and noticed in writing on the
24
motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the motion.”
25
Id. 7-2(a).
26
27
28

1

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Request for Remand does not comply with the

2

Civil Local Rules. In particular, Plaintiff filed his Request for Remand as a “Statement,” rather than

3

noticing it for a hearing pursuant to the Local Rules.1 (See Request for Remand.)

4

Accordingly, the Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s Request for Remand. If Plaintiff

5

wishes the Court to address the merits of his Request for Remand, he shall file a duly noticed

6

Motion pursuant to the Civil Local Rules.

7
8
9

Dated: March 5, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27

Although the Court liberally construes similar submissions by pro se plaintiffs as Motions,
Plaintiff in this case is represented by counsel.

28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Martin Barnett Reiner [e-mail]
Michael Gayland Pedhirney [e-mail]

3
4

Dated: March 5, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

5
By:
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy