Sunny Thompson v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation

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.