Opinion
2:24-cv-00209-AB-SK
02-23-2024
Gunter Zielke v. Scott Eric Rosenstiel
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: [In Chambers] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REMAND [Dkt. No. 8]
Before the Court is a Motion for Remand (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 8) filed by Beneficiary Gunter Zielke (“Zielke”). Plaintiff Scott Rosenstiel (“Plaintiff') did not file an opposition. The Court will resolve the Motion without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing set for March 1, 2024. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78, C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. The Motionfor Remand is GRANTED
DISCUSSION
Rosenstiel, appearing pro se, removed this action on January 9, 2024, based on diversity jurisdiction. (It appears that Rosenstiel was represented by counsel in state court and removed the action on his own.) Zielke filed this Motion on January 23, 2024, timely noticing it for hearing on March 1, 2024. Zielke also served the Motion on Rosenstiel on January 30, 2024. See Dkt. No. 12. The deadline for Rosenstiel to respond to the Motion was February 9, 2024. See Local Rule 7-9. As of the date of this Order, Rosenstiel has not responded to the Motion. Under Local Rule 7-12, “The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” In this case, the Court deems Rosenstiel's failure to oppose as conceding the merits of the Motion and consenting to it being granted.
The Motion is also granted on its merits. Zielke moved for remand on the following grounds: “(a) the probate exception to federal court jurisdiction requires remand; (b) there is neither diversity nor federal court jurisdiction; (c) as the de facto plaintiff, Rosenstiel had no right to remove the action; and (d) removal was untimely.” See Notice 2:6-12. All of these grounds are well-supported. The Court therefore concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and GRANTS the Motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to remand this case to the state court from which it was removed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.