Strojnik v. Albuquerque Boca Hotel, LP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson, denying 63 MOTION to Remand and Notice (meq)
Case 1:20-cv-00843-WJ-GBW Document 70 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE BOCA HOTEL, LP
D/B/A CROWNE PLAZA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO REMAND AND NOTICE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand UTPA Brand
Deceit Claim, Count 6, and Related Counts 7 and 8 to State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(c)
(Mehta Matter), Doc. 63, filed December 23, 2020 (“Motion to Remand”).
On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand the brand deceit claim for
the latest case consolidated with this case. See Doc. 63. Later that same day, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s previous motions to remand the brand deceit claims of other previously consolidated
cases. See Doc. 64, filed December 23, 2020. The Court denies Plaintiff’s latest Motion to
Remand the brand deceit claim because Plaintiff “accepted the [previous] ruling [denying the
motions to remand the brand deceit claims] as the law of the case” and stipulated to denial of the
latest Motion to Remand. See Doc. 69, filed January 7, 2020.
Plaintiff filed his latest Motion to Remand on December 23, 2020, on the same day but
earlier than the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s previous motions to remand. Intervenor State of
Case 1:20-cv-00843-WJ-GBW Document 70 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2
New Mexico filed its Response on January 6, 2020. See Doc. 66. Defendants Deepak Mehta and
Meera Mehta also filed their Response on January 6, 2020. See Doc. 68.
Plaintiff asserts that the Mehtas’ Response was not necessary because Plaintiff executed a
stipulated order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand on January 5, 2020, at the request of counsel
for Defendants Deepak Mehta and Meera Mehta. See Reply, Doc. 69. The State of New Mexico
was not a party to the stipulated order denying the Motion to Remand. Plaintiff also asserts that
the Court’s previous ruling is “the law of the case” and that the State’s Response was also
unnecessary because “[w]hen the Court issues a ruling relating to one party that is dispositive of
the same issue concerning a different party, all that is necessary is to pick up the phone and call”
Plaintiff. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s reasoning regarding the law of the case suggests that
Plaintiff also had an obligation to withdraw his Motion.
The Court, which has a very heavy case load, reminds counsel and Plaintiff that they “share
the responsibility” to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment. Expending time addressing
unnecessary documents delays the resolution of not only this case but also the Court’s other cases.
The Court expects counsel and Plaintiff to communicate and to try to resolve issues before bringing
them to the Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand UTPA Brand Deceit Claim, Count
6, and Related Counts 7 and 8 to State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(c) (Mehta Matter),
Doc. 63, filed December 23, 2020, is DENIED.
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?