Priestley et al v. Priestley

Filing 10

ORDER of Remand to the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CJ-2013-1044. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 12/20/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PATRICK PRIESTLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN J. PRIESTLEY, JR.,
an individual,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1234-D

ORDER OF REMAND
Before the Court is Plaintiff Patrick Priestley’s Objection to Notice of
Removal and Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice [Doc. No. 7]. Because Defendant
has filed no response within the period prescribed by LCvR7.1(g), the Court deems
the allegations in Plaintiff’s motion confessed, and hereby grants the motion. See
id. (“Any motion that is not opposed within 21 days may, in the discretion of the
court, be deemed confessed.”); Calvey v. Obama, 792 F.Supp.2d 1262, 1273 (W.D.
Okla. 2011) (“[A] respondent must address any and all issues raised by a moving
party’s papers, or else face the very real possibility that it will be deemed to have
abandoned its right to do so.”) (quoting United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234,
1251 (10th Cir. 2009)).
Moreover, the Court finds the arguments in Plaintiff’s motion and brief
regarding the deficiencies of Defendant’s Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1] to be

well taken, and finds the notice fails to present a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Objection to Notice of Removal and Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice [Doc. No.
7] is GRANTED as set forth herein. The present action is hereby REMANDED to
the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2013-1044.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2016.

2