Manuel Covarrubias v. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL COVARRUBIAS, as an Case No. 2:21-cv-05037-MCS-PVC individual and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND [15]

Plaintiff, v.

HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE

CONSTRUCTION CO., a California corporation, HATHAWAY

DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION

GROUP, a California Corporation,

AND DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Manuel Covarrubias moves to remand. Mot., ECF No. 15-1. Defendants oppose, arguing that the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff made no attempt to comply with Local Rule 7-3. Opp’n, ECF No. 20. The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacates the hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15.

“[C]ounsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution” at least seven days before filing a motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3. “The purpose of Local Rule 7-3 is to help parties reach a resolution which eliminates the necessity for a hearing,” which “further[s] judicial economy and the administration of justice.” James R. Glidewell Dental Ceramics, Inc. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., No. 8:16-cv-01155-JLS-E, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189416, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Caldera v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. CV 12-4936-GHK (VBKx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183977, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2013) (noting that the rule “enables the parties to brief the remaining disputes in a thoughtful, concise, and useful manner” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Counsel should discuss the issues to a sufficient degree that if a motion is still necessary, the briefing may be directed to those substantive issues requiring resolution by the Court.” See Initial Standing Order § 9(c).

Plaintiff fails to provide a statement of compliance with the prefiling conference requirement. It is undisputed that no prefiling conference took place and that Plaintiff did not comply with the spirit or letter of Local Rule 7-3 before filing the Motion. The Court has discretion to deny a motion for failure to comply with the prefiling conference requirement. United States v. Kan-Di-Ki LLC, No. CV 10-965-JST (RZx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198258, at *1–2 (citing Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Motion is denied without prejudice to renewal after an adequate prefiling conference of counsel. The parties shall comply with this new deadline, as well as this Court’s and Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2021 ________________________________ MARK C. SCARSI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE