Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03031/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03031-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYLER FARMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LABOR READY SOUTHWEST, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-cv-3031-L(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND TO STATE COURT [DOC. 7]

Defendants Labor Ready Southwest, Inc., Trueblue, Inc., and True Blue Enterprises, Inc.

Swift Transportation Corporation removed this action from the San Diego Superior Court. On

January 27, 2012, Plaintiff Tyler Farmer filed a motion to remand this action back to state court. 

(Doc. 7.) The Court also issued an order finding Plaintiff’s motion suitable for determination on

the papers submitted and without oral argument. (Doc. 8.) Defendants have not opposed. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly grant

a motion for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 52 (9th Cir. 1995)

(per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had

notice of the motion and ample time to respond). Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) expressly provides

that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that

11cv3031

Case 3:11-cv-03031-L-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

failure may constitute a consent to the granting of that motion or other ruling by the court.”

In this case, based on the February 27, 2012 hearing date, Defendants’ opposition was

due by February 13, 2012. However, Defendants did not file an opposition by that date and have

not requested additional time to do so. Moreover, there is no evidence before the Court that

Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to reach the mailing address designated in his Proof of Service

or that Defendants are not aware of the pending motion. Therefore, relying on Civil Local Rule

7.1(f.3.c), the Court deems Defendants’ failure to oppose Plaintiff’s motion as consent to

granting it.

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and hereby REMANDS

this matter to the San Diego Superior Court. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a certified copy

of this order to the state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 14, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

2 11cv3031

Case 3:11-cv-03031-L-JMA Document 13 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 2