Hanulcikova v. Eisenman et al

Filing 16

ORDER Granting 6 Motion to Remand to State Court. (Certified Copy of this Order sent to the Clark County District Court.) Case terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 02/24/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SRK)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (#6, filed December 2, 2008). No response or opposition has been filed. Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that failure to file points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes a consent that the motion be granted. Abbott v. United Venture Capitol, Inc. 718 F.Supp. 828, 831 (D. Nev. 1989). It has been said these local rules, no less than the federal rules or acts of Congress, have the force of law. United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574-575 (1958); Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929); Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 723 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Defendants have consented to the Motion. Furthermore, in this personal injury­automobile accident case, the Defendants are citizens of the State of Nevada. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) permits removal only "if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." Accordingly, removal was improper and this matter must be remanded. //// 1 SHAR PADGETT HANULCIKOVA, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) THOMAS L. EISENMAN, et al., ) ) Defendant(s). ) ____________________________________)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

2:08-cv-1662-RLH-PAL ORDER (Motion for Remand­#6)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (#6) is GRANTED and this matter is remanded to the state court from whence it came. Dated: February 24, 2009.

____________________________________ Roger L. Hunt Chief United States District Judge

2