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

Case No. 2:24-cv-05255-MCS-MAR Date August 27, 2025 Title Gill vy. US Data Mgmt, LLC

Present: The Honorable Mark C. Scarsi, United States District Judge

Stephen Montes Kerr —_———NotReported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 39) (JS-6)

Plaintiff Jayne Gill moves to remand this case to the Santa Barbara County Superior Court for lack of diversity jurisdiction. (Mot., ECF No. 39.) Because jurisdictional challenges may be raised at any time, the Court considers the motion even though it is untimely under the scheduling order. The Court deems the motion appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacates the hearing set for September 15, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Defendant US Data Management, LLC, did not file a timely response to the motion. C.D. Cal. R. 7-9. The Court deems Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the motion as its consent to the granting of the motion. C.D. Cal. R. 7-12; e.g., Shaw v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:25-cv-03035 MWC (MARx), 2025 U:S. Dist. LEXIS 104336, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2025) (collecting cases granting motions to remand based on failure to file a timely opposition); see Christian v. Mattel, Inc.,

, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice and enforcing local rules that place parameters on briefing.”). To wit, in response to a jurisdictional challenge, the removing party has the burden of establishing grounds for federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, and Defendant declined to address its burden by filing a timely brief Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk SMO

opposing the motion. See Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka,

, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 2010).1

The motion is granted. The Court remands the case to the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, No. 24CV02741. The Court directs the Clerk to effect the remand immediately and close the federal case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 The Court expressly declines to decide whether a declaration US Data Management offered in response to an order to show cause would have met this burden had it been presented in response to the motion. (Schultz Decl., ECF No. 16-1.) See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9 (requiring a party to submit with opposing papers “the evidence upon which the opposing party will rely”).