DAVIS v. ARAMARK CORPORATION, CV-17-08154-PCT-JAT. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20170913d14
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court. (Doc. 16). In her motion, Plaintiff argues the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction was not established by the removing Defendants in this case. ( Id. ). The deadline for Defendants to respond to the motion to remand has run, and Defendants did not file a timely response to the motion. ( See Local Rule Civil 7.2(c)). Pursuant to Local Rule Civi
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court. (Doc. 16). In her motion, Plaintiff argues the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction was not established by the removing Defendants in this case. ( Id. ). The deadline for Defendants to respond to the motion to remand has run, and Defendants did not file a timely response to the motion. ( See Local Rule Civil 7.2(c)). Pursuant to Local Rule Civil..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court. (Doc. 16). In her motion, Plaintiff argues the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction was not established by the removing Defendants in this case. (Id.).
The deadline for Defendants to respond to the motion to remand has run, and Defendants did not file a timely response to the motion. (See Local Rule Civil 7.2(c)). Pursuant to Local Rule Civil 7.2(i), the Court deems the failure to timely respond to the motion to be consent to the motion being granted (specifically, a concession that the amount in controversy was not established).1
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand (Doc. 16) is granted; this case is remanded to Coconino County Superior Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 scheduling conference set for September 20, 2017, is vacated.
September 12, 2017
Clerk's Office
Coconino County Superior Court
200 N. San Francisco St.
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
ATTN: Civil File Counter
RE: REMAND TO COCONINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
District Court Case Number: CV-17-8154-PCT-JAT
Superior Court Case Number: CV2017-00201
Dear Clerk of Court:
Enclosed is a certified copy of the Order entered in this Court on September 12, 2017, remanding the above case to Coconino County Superior Court for the State of Arizona.
Sincerely,
BRIAN D. KARTH, DCE/CLERK OF COURT
S/L. Dixon
Deputy Clerk
Enclosure
cc: all counsel
FootNotes
1. As further evidence that the parties are in agreement that they are returning to state court, the parties failed to file their proposed case management plan for the September 20, 2017 Rule 16 conference, which was due last Friday (September 8, 2017).
Source: Leagle
