Frank Monaco Bazzo v. Bernardo Suazo, O' Brian Bailey, and Ruben Martinez

E.D. California

Frank Monaco Bazzo v. Bernardo Suazo, O' Brian Bailey, and Ruben Martinez

DecidedMarch 12, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-01426

StatusUnknown

This text of Frank Monaco Bazzo v. Bernardo Suazo, O' Brian Bailey, and Ruben Martinez (Frank Monaco Bazzo v. Bernardo Suazo, O' Brian Bailey, and Ruben Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Monaco Bazzo v. Bernardo Suazo, O' Brian Bailey, and Ruben Martinez, (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK MONACO BAZZO, Case No. 1:26-cv-01426-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. CONSTRUED MOTION TO REMAND 14 BERNARDO SUAZO, O' BRIAN (Doc. 4) BAILEY, AND RUBEN MARTINEZ, 15 TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 On February 27, 2026, the Defendants removed this case from the Madera County 18 Superior Court to this court. (Docs. 1, 2). On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled 19 “Request for Judicial Notice.” (Doc. 4). Therein, Plaintiff objects to the removal, stating the 20 action was filed in state court on December 15, 2025, and Defendants were served on November 21 12, 2025.1 (Doc. 4). Plaintiff further states he already moved for entry of default judgment and 22 “the remedy is currently being litigated” so Defendants cannot change venue at this stage. (Id.). 23 Liberally construed, the court construes the pleading as a motion to remand.2 Defendants shall 24

25 1 The court notes the inconsistency of these dates, i.e. that defendants were served before the case was filed. 26 2 A pleading's “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass'n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm'ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, courts are instructed to “construe [the pleading], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id. 28 1 | file an opposition or statement of no opposition to Plaintiff’s construed motion for remand within 2 || twenty-one days. Local Rule 203(1). 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 1. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of no opposition to Plaintiff's 5 construed motion to remand within twenty-one days. 6 2. Plaintiff's may file a reply to Defendants’ response, if he elects to do so, no later than 7 14 days after Defendants’ filed response. 8 ” | Dated: _ March 11, 2026 Mihaw. Th. foareh Hack 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK MONACO BAZZO, Case No. 1:26-cv-01426-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. CONSTRUED MOTION TO REMAND 14 BERNARDO SUAZO, O' BRIAN (Doc. 4) BAILEY, AND RUBEN MARTINEZ, 15 TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 On February 27, 2026, the Defendants removed this case from the Madera County 18 Superior Court to this court. (Docs. 1, 2). On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled 19 “Request for Judicial Notice.” (Doc. 4). Therein, Plaintiff objects to the removal, stating the 20 action was filed in state court on December 15, 2025, and Defendants were served on November 21 12, 2025.1 (Doc. 4). Plaintiff further states he already moved for entry of default judgment and 22 “the remedy is currently being litigated” so Defendants cannot change venue at this stage. (Id.). 23 Liberally construed, the court construes the pleading as a motion to remand.2 Defendants shall 24

25 1 The court notes the inconsistency of these dates, i.e. that defendants were served before the case was filed. 26 2 A pleading's “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass'n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm'ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, courts are instructed to “construe [the pleading], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id. 28 1 | file an opposition or statement of no opposition to Plaintiff’s construed motion for remand within 2 || twenty-one days. Local Rule 203(1). 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 1. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of no opposition to Plaintiff's 5 construed motion to remand within twenty-one days. 6 2. Plaintiff's may file a reply to Defendants’ response, if he elects to do so, no later than 7 14 days after Defendants’ filed response. 8 ” | Dated: _ March 11, 2026 Mihaw. Th. foareh Hack 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frank Monaco Bazzo v. Bernardo Suazo, O' Brian Bailey, and Ruben Martinez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-monaco-bazzo-v-bernardo-suazo-o-brian-bailey-and-ruben-martinez-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack