Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

STRUSKI v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 17-12037-NMG. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts Number: infdco20171120b48 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2017
Summary: ORDER NATHANIEL M. GORTON , District Judge . On October 25, 2017, plaintiffs David and Christine Struski ("plaintiffs") filed an emergency motion for remand, a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and sanctions (Docket No 9). Because the foreclosure sale scheduled to occur on October 30, 2017 was postponed, the Court denied the emergency motion for a TRO as moot on October 26, 2017. In its response to plaintiffs' motion for remand (Docket No. 19), defendant Bank of America, N.A. (the removi
More

ORDER

On October 25, 2017, plaintiffs David and Christine Struski ("plaintiffs") filed an emergency motion for remand, a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and sanctions (Docket No 9). Because the foreclosure sale scheduled to occur on October 30, 2017 was postponed, the Court denied the emergency motion for a TRO as moot on October 26, 2017. In its response to plaintiffs' motion for remand (Docket No. 19), defendant Bank of America, N.A. (the removing party), states that defendants do not oppose remand of the case to the Massachusetts Superior Court.

In light of defendants' assent, plaintiffs' motion for remand and sanctions (Docket No. 9) is, with respect to remand, ALLOWED but is, with respect to its request for sanctions, DENIED.

Defendant Guaetta & Benson, LLC's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 16) is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiffs' motion to stay (Docket No. 20) is DENIED as moot.

Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County.

So ordered.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer