Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nobo Capital, LLC v. Genichi Ito

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 6, 2011

NOBO CAPITAL, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GENICHI ITO, SHIJIYO ITO, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

O

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

[Motion filed on August 15, 2011]

Presently before this court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and For Costs For Defective Removal. Because Defendants have not filed an opposition, the court GRANTS the motion.

This is an action that arises from an unlawful detainer and complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 21, 2011, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Northeast District. Plaintiff's claim arises from Defendants' failure to comply with a Three Day Notice to Quit after Plaintiff purchased real property located at 2301 S.4th Ave., Arcadia, California 91006 through Trustee's sale. (Compl. ¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to take immediate possession of the premises and evict Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Defendants removed this action to the United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division, on July 14, 2011.

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand and For Costs For Defective Removal and Lack of Federal Question. A hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand was set for September 12, 2011.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, a party opposing a motion is required to file an opposition no later than twenty-one days before the hearing. C.D. Cal. Local R. 7-9. Failure to file an opposition within the deadline may be deemed consent to granting the motion. C.D. Cal. Local R. 7-12. Therefore, Defendants' opposition was due on August 22, 2011. As of the date of this Order, Defendants have not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed as an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Accordingly, the court regards Defendants' failure to oppose to be consent to granting Plaintiff's motion.

For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Plaintiff's request for an order awarding Plaintiff costs is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110906

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.