The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-06124-SPG-AJR Date July 24, 2025
Title Minjie Zheng v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, et al.
ee
Present: The Honorable SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
P. Gomez Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
Proceeding: CHAMBERS) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO
REMAND [ECF NOS. 17, 18, 19, 20, 25]
Before the Court are five separate Requests to Remand the Case to the Superior Court
of the State of California (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 25), filed by Plaintiff Minjie Zheng
(“Plaintiff”). The requests fail to comply with Local Rules 7-3 or 7-4 in that they do not set a
hearing date or indicate that there was a prior conference of counsel. Additionally, the Court
notes that “it is improper to file multiple motions seeking the same or overlapping relief.” Pinson
v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. CV-22-00298-TUC-RM, 2024 WL 579080, at *6 (D. Ariz. Feb.
13, 2024). While Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this action, he is still required to comply with
the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Court’s Standing Order.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's Requests to Remand for
failure to comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff may refile a single, consolidated Motion to
Remand.
Initials of Preparer pg