Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

C.D. California

Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

DecidedJuly 24, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-06124

StatusUnknown

This text of Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-06124-SPG-AJR Date July 24, 2025 Title Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, et al.

ee Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P. Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: CHAMBERS) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO REMAND [ECF NOS. 17, 18, 19, 20, 25] Before the Court are five separate Requests to Remand the Case to the Superior Court of the State of California (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 25), filed by Plaintiff Minjie Zheng (“Plaintiff”). The requests fail to comply with Local Rules 7-3 or 7-4 in that they do not set a hearing date or indicate that there was a prior conference of counsel. Additionally, the Court notes that “it is improper to file multiple motions seeking the same or overlapping relief.” Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. CV-22-00298-TUC-RM, 2024 WL 579080, at *6 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2024). While Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this action, he is still required to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Court’s Standing Order. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's Requests to Remand for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff may refile a single, consolidated Motion to Remand.

Initials of Preparer pg

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-06124-SPG-AJR Date July 24, 2025 Title Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, et al.

ee Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE P. Gomez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceeding: CHAMBERS) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO REMAND [ECF NOS. 17, 18, 19, 20, 25] Before the Court are five separate Requests to Remand the Case to the Superior Court of the State of California (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 25), filed by Plaintiff Minjie Zheng (“Plaintiff”). The requests fail to comply with Local Rules 7-3 or 7-4 in that they do not set a hearing date or indicate that there was a prior conference of counsel. Additionally, the Court notes that “it is improper to file multiple motions seeking the same or overlapping relief.” Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. CV-22-00298-TUC-RM, 2024 WL 579080, at *6 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2024). While Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this action, he is still required to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Court’s Standing Order. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's Requests to Remand for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff may refile a single, consolidated Motion to Remand.

Initials of Preparer pg

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minjie-zheng-v-internet-corporation-for-assigned-names-and-numbers-cacd-2025.