Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Erika Alvizo sued Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Case No. 5:26-cv-05318-MWC-SP. The October 19, 2026 civil minutes are an in-chambers order by the Honorable Michelle Williams Court, United States District Judge, and they address only the procedural handling of Alvizo's effort to return the action to state court. The order does not describe the underlying claims, does not decide whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists, and does not resolve whether remand is ultimately warranted.
Alvizo filed her first motion to remand the action to state court on October 14, 2026, at docket entry 13. The court struck that filing at docket entry 14 for failing to comply with the district's Local Rules and the judge's Standing Order. On October 15, 2026, she filed a second motion to remand at docket entry 15. Although this version included a declaration describing conferral with opposing counsel before filing, the conference did not take place at least seven days before the motion was filed, as Local Rule 7-3 requires.
The Court’s Holding
The court struck docket entry 15 rather than denying the remand request on its merits. Local Rule 7-3 requires counsel contemplating the filing of any motion to first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution. The conference must occur in person, by telephone, or by video conference at least seven days before the motion is filed. If the parties cannot reach a resolution that eliminates the need for a hearing, the moving party must include a declaration under penalty of perjury setting out the date or dates of the conference and each party's position on the disputed issues.
The court explained that the new declaration did not cure the timing defect because the conferral had not occurred at least seven days before filing. The judge's revised Standing Order independently warns that if the parties do not comply with Local Rule 7-3, the court may strike or deny the motion. The order thus treats the seven-day requirement as a substantive condition of motion practice, not one satisfied merely by documenting that some consultation eventually took place.
The court relied on Ninth Circuit authority recognizing that district courts have considerable latitude in managing motion practice and enforcing local rules that place parameters on briefing, and it noted that Rule 7-3 serves the important function of helping secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. It also collected Central District decisions routinely striking or denying motions for Rule 7-3 violations. The operative disposition strikes the motion, vacates the November 20, 2026 hearing date, and permits Alvizo to refile once counsel rectifies the errors identified in the order.
Key Takeaways
- A declaration confirming that counsel conferred with opposing counsel does not satisfy Local Rule 7-3 when the conference occurred fewer than seven days before the motion was filed.
- The court struck Alvizo's second motion to remand (Dkt. #15) for procedural noncompliance and did not decide whether the action should actually be returned to state court.
- The November 20, 2026 hearing was vacated, but the order expressly permits Alvizo to refile the motion once counsel rectifies the identified errors.
- The decision applies the district's meet-and-confer rule together with Judge Court's revised Standing Order and Ninth Circuit authority supporting enforcement of local briefing requirements.
- Because the first motion was already struck at docket entry 14, this order shows that a second procedural failure produces another strike even when the movant attempted to address the earlier deficiency.
Why It Matters
The order provides a concrete application of the Central District's seven-day conferral deadline: refiling a motion promptly with a conferral declaration is insufficient if the underlying conference remains untimely. It confirms that both the Local Rules and the assigned judge's Standing Order independently authorize striking a noncompliant motion.
For practitioners, the practical consequence is delay rather than loss of the opportunity to seek remand. The court left the substantive remand issues open, specified the path forward—correct the identified defects and refile—and made clear that the strike is without prejudice to a properly supported renewed motion.