J 5-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 | CHRISTOPHER KOTULAK, Case No.: SACV 23-00476-CJC (JDEx) ? Plaintiff ats ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 Vv DR. WILLIAM F. DAVIS’ □ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND 14 [Dkt. 20] 15 || DR. WILLIAM F. DAVIS, MD, LA VETA MEDICAL CENTER, BARD 16 || DAVOL, aka BD, aka BARD, aka 7 | DAVOL, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants. oY 20 21 Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions 22 || arising under federal law or (2) are between diverse parties and involve an amount in 23 || controversy that exceeds $75,000.

, 1332. Principles of federalism 24 judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal] jurisdiction 25 the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. 26 || Sheets,

(1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more jealously guarded by 27 court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado,

(9th 28 || Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).

1 Defendant Dr. William F. Davis moves to remand this case because the Court lacks 2 subject matter jurisdiction over it. Specifically, “the only remaining claim is a state law 3 ||claim for medical negligence, and the only remaining parties are . . . all California 4 ||citizens. Diversity jurisdiction thus does not exist, and remand should be granted.” (Dkt. 5 at 7-8.) Dr. Davis represents that “[a]ll parties agree that the action should be 6 |}remanded back to the state court and no party will oppose this motion.” (/d. at 2.) 7 || Indeed, the deadline to file an opposition has passed and no opposition was filed. See 8 ||C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (stating that failure to oppose a motion by the deadline “may be 9 ||deemed consent to the granting .. . of the motion”). The Court GRANTS Dr. Davis’ 10 || unopposed motion to remand and REMANDS this case to Orange County Superior i || Court.! 12 13 DATED: August 23, 2023 Ko fe 4 gf CTS 15 CORMAC J. CARNEY 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TWh Having read and considered the papers presented, the Court finds this matter appropriate for 28 || disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for September 11, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar.