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

Opinion

FRANK MONACO BAZZO, Case No. 1:26-cv-01426-HBK Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S v. CONSTRUED MOTION TO REMAND BERNARDO SUAZO, O' BRIAN (Doc. 4) BAILEY, AND RUBEN MARTINEZ, Defendants. On February 27, 2026, the Defendants removed this case from the Madera County Superior Court to this court. (Docs. 1, 2). On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Request for Judicial Notice.” (Doc. 4). Therein, Plaintiff objects to the removal, stating the action was filed in state court on December 15, 2025, and Defendants were served on November 12, 2025.1 (Doc. 4). Plaintiff further states he already moved for entry of default judgment and “the remedy is currently being litigated” so Defendants cannot change venue at this stage. (Id.). Liberally construed, the court construes the pleading as a motion to remand.2 Defendants shall

1 The court notes the inconsistency of these dates, i.e. that defendants were served before the case was filed. 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, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, courts are instructed to “construe [the pleading], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id. file an opposition or statement of no opposition to Plaintiff’s construed motion for remand within twenty-one days. Local Rule 203(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of no opposition to Plaintiff's construed motion to remand within twenty-one days. 2. Plaintiff's may file a reply to Defendants’ response, if he elects to do so, no later than 14 days after Defendants’ filed response. ” | Dated: _ March 11, 2026 Mihaw. Th. foareh Hack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE