Sunny Thompson v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation
This text of Sunny Thompson v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation (Sunny Thompson v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation) 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.
Opinion
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-2942-SK Date: April 30, 2025 Title Sunny Thompson v. Sonesta Int’l Hotels Corp.
Present: The Honorable: Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge
Connie Chung n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None present None present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT [ECF 10]
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to remand this case to state court (ECF 10) is denied for failure to comply with the local rules of the court. See, e.g., L.R. 7-3, 7-4, 7-19. It also does not meet the preconditions for ex parte relief. See Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Nothing in this order, however, prevents the parties from discussing the merits of plaintiff’s motion to remand during the conference of counsel they have been ordered to convene in advance of the June 4, 2025 scheduling conference (ECF 9). If the parties are then unable to resolve any dispute, they can propose a briefing schedule for a properly noticed motion to remand in the required joint Rule 26(f) report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sunny Thompson v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunny-thompson-v-sonesta-international-hotels-corporation-cacd-2025.