Marc Carlis v. Beijing Pu Luo Media Co., 2:20-cv-03451

Marc Carlis filed a breach of contract complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 10, 2020.
Defendant removed the action to federal court on April 4, 2020, asserting federal-question jurisdiction.
Carlis filed a motion to remand on May 4, 2020, served it by mail, and met-and-conferred with Defendant on April 27, 2020; the hearing was noticed for June 1, 2020.
Under the local rules, Defendant’s opposition was due by May 11, 2020, but Defendant filed no opposition and requested no extension or relief.
The Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and applied Local Rule 7-12 and Ninth Circuit precedent on unopposed motions.
The Court granted Carlis’s motion and remanded the case to Los Angeles Superior Court on May 26, 2020.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case should be remanded to state court	Carlis sought remand to state court (challenging federal jurisdiction/ asserting remand appropriate)	No opposition or substantive argument submitted	Court granted remand and returned the case to state court
Whether Defendant’s failure to oppose warrants granting the motion under local rules	Motion served and Defendant had ample time to respond; failure to oppose should be treated as consent	No response; no request for extension or excuse provided	Court treated the lack of opposition as consent under C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 and Ninth Circuit law and granted the motion

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to file an opposition may justify dismissal or granting a motion as unopposed when the movant gave notice and time to respond)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (outlining factors a court should weigh before granting relief as unopposed)
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (district courts need not make explicit findings on each factor before granting relief for an unopposed motion)