Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Erika Alvizo filed a Motion to Remand Action to State Court on October 14, 2026, asking the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to return Case No. 5:26-cv-05318-MWC-SP to state court. The motion was docketed as Document 13, and the court issued its in-chambers order as Document 14 on October 15, 2026.
The Central District of California's Local Rule 7-3 requires counsel contemplating any motion to first contact opposing counsel to discuss the substance of the motion and any potential resolution. The conference must occur in person, by telephone, or by video conference at least seven days before filing, and if no resolution eliminates the need for a hearing, the moving party must include a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the conference dates and each party's position on the disputed issues.
The court's revised Standing Order adds two relevant requirements. Paragraph 8b warns that if the parties do not comply with Local Rule 7-3, the court may strike or deny the motion. Paragraph 1a requires lawyers filing any motion, pleading, or other paper to submit a declaration certifying the use or non-use of artificial intelligence. Plaintiff's filing included neither the Local Rule 7-3 conferral declaration nor the artificial-intelligence declaration.
The Court’s Holding
The court struck Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 13) for failing to comply with C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-3 and the court's revised Standing Order. The order reasoned that district courts have considerable latitude in managing motion practice and enforcing local rules that place parameters on briefing, and it described Local Rule 7-3 as serving the important function of helping secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action rather than as mere formalism.
The court treated the missing artificial-intelligence declaration as a separate, additional reason to strike the motion. It also noted that courts in the district routinely deny or strike motions when a party fails to comply with Local Rule 7-3, citing district decisions including Est. of Martinez v. County of L.A., Bosco v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., and Mission Wealth Management, LP v. Flores.
The order expressly did not reach the merits of whether remand to state court was substantively warranted. It vacated the November 20, 2026 hearing date and stated that Plaintiff may re-file the motion once counsel rectifies the errors identified in the order, making the strike procedural and without prejudice to a compliant renewed motion.
Key Takeaways
- The court struck the motion to remand solely on procedural grounds and did not decide whether the action should be remanded to state court on the merits.
- Local Rule 7-3's pre-filing conference requirement is strictly enforced in the Central District of California, and failure to include the required declaration may result in a motion being denied or stricken.
- Standing Order ¶ 8b specifically warns that noncompliance with Local Rule 7-3 may lead the court to strike or deny the motion, while Standing Order ¶ 1a separately requires an artificial-intelligence use or non-use declaration for filings.
- The missing artificial-intelligence declaration was an independent additional basis for striking the motion, not part of the Local Rule 7-3 warning.
- The November 20, 2026 hearing was vacated, and Plaintiff may re-file the motion to remand after correcting the identified procedural defects.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that even a potentially significant dispositive motion such as a motion to remand can be stricken without merits consideration when counsel fails to satisfy mandatory pre-filing requirements. It reinforces the practical importance of Local Rule 7-3 conferral declarations and of the court's standing-order compliance rules in Central District of California practice.
The decision also shows the district court treating artificial-intelligence disclosure as an independent filing requirement: the absence of the required certification was identified as another reason to strike the motion, adding a distinct layer of procedural compliance for practitioners appearing before this court.