Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. ROBINSON, 2:14-cv-1433 KJM DAD PS. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140729845 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. By Notice of Removal filed June 16, 2014, this unlawful detainer action was removed from the Napa County Superior Court by defendants Vicki Robinson and Steve Robinson, who are proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On June 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action, (Dkt. No. 7), along with a motion for an order shortening time to hear plaintiff
More

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

By Notice of Removal filed June 16, 2014, this unlawful detainer action was removed from the Napa County Superior Court by defendants Vicki Robinson and Steve Robinson, who are proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On June 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action, (Dkt. No. 7), along with a motion for an order shortening time to hear plaintiff's motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff's motion to remand is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on August 8, 2014, asserts that this court does not have jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action and requests an order remanding this action to the Napa County Superior Court.

However, on June 23, 2014, prior to the filing of plaintiff's motions, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, finding that defendants had failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for federal jurisdiction over this action and recommending that the matter be summarily remanded to the Napa County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 3.) The time for filing objections to those findings and recommendations has passed, no party filed objections, and those findings and recommendations are now pending before the assigned District Judge.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 28, 2014 amended motion to remand (Dkt. No. 7) is denied without prejudice1;

2. The August 8, 2014 hearing of plaintiff's motion to remand is vacated; and

3. Plaintiff's amended ex parte application for an order shortening time (Dkt. No. 8) is denied.

FootNotes


1. In the event the undersigned's June 23, 2014 findings and recommendations are not adopted in full and this matter is not remanded to the Napa County Superior Court, plaintiff may file a renewed motion to remand and notice it for hearing before the undersigned.
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