Opinion
EDCV21-01223-JWH (KKx)
10-19-2021
Thomas Randall v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable JOHN W. HOLCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)
The Court has reviewed the motion of Plaintiff Thomas Randall “to Remand, or in the Alternative, Request for Leave to Amend His Complaint and For an Order to Remand to State Court; Memorandum of Points and Authorities” (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 18].
This Court's Local Rules require “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion first [to] contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly . . . the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” L.R. 7-3. Such a “conference shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.” Id. The Local Rules further provide that the “Court may decline to consider a motion unless it meets the requirements of L.R. 7-3 through 7-8.” L.R. 7-4.
This Court expects and requires strict compliance with the Local Rules. Here, it appears that Plaintiff's counsel failed to engage in any Conference of Counsel before filing the Motion, as required by L.R. 7-3. Plaintiff's counsel transmitted a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant's counsel on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, at 5:09 p.m., but then proceeded to file the Motion six days later, on Monday, August 23, 2021. There is no indication that Plaintiff's counsel made any attempt to engage in a L.R. 7-3 Conference of Counsel before he transmitted his August 17, 2021, letter.
Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Remand [ECF No. 23] at 2:1-3.
Id. at 2:3-4.
Accordingly, pursuant to L.R. 7-4, the Court declines to consider the Motion. The Court admonishes counsel henceforth to comply strictly with all Local Rules, including L.R. 7-3.
The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion under L.R. 7-4, for failure to comply with L.R. 7-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.