Anderson v. Mercury Casualty Company

Filing 14

ORDER that 8 Motion to Remand to State Court is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/11/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

Jana Anderson,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

Mercury Casualty Company,
7

Defendant.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-0031-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9
10

Before the Court is the Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 8), filed by Plaintiff Jana Anderson.

11

Defendant Mercury Casualty Company failed to file a response. For the reasons that follow, the

12

Court GRANTS the Motion and REMANDS this action to Clark County District Court.

13

I.

14

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on November 25, 2014, in Clark County District Court.

15

(Compl. at p.1, ECF No. 2-1). Defendant removed the case on January 7, 2015, citing this

16

Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Pet. for Rem. 1:17-19, ECF No. 1). The

17

Complaint centers upon claims that Defendant failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff for

18

injuries she allegedly sustained during a January 11, 2011, automobile accident. (Compl. at

19

4:12-15).

20

On January 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, requesting that the Court remand

21

this case to Clark County District Court based on Defendant’s failure to show that the amount in

22

controversy exceeds $75,000. (ECF No. 8). Pursuant to Rule 7-2(b) of the Local Rules of

23

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Defendant had fourteen

24

days after service of the Motion to file a response. Accordingly, Defendant had until February

25

7, 2015, to respond to the Motion to Remand. However, because this deadline fell on a

Page 1 of 2

1

Saturday, Plaintiff had until February 9, 2015, to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Not only

2

did Defendant fail to meet this deadline, Defendant has failed to file any response whatsoever.

3

II.

DISCUSSION

4

Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and

5

authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” D.

6

Nev. R. 7-2(d). Here, Defendant failed to file a response regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to

7

Remand, and therefore consented to the granting of the Motion. Accordingly, the Court will

8

grant the Motion and remand this action to Clark County District Court.

9

III.

CONCLUSION

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 8), is GRANTED.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to Clark County District

12

Court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case.

13

DATED this 11th day of February, 2015.

14
15
16
17

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2