Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KINDSVATER v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 2:15-cv-01982-JAM-EFB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151009769 Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2015
Summary: STIPULATED REMAND (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2015-00183326) JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff, on his own behalf, and Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), National Default Servicing Corporation ("NDSC"), and U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank N.A., as Trustee for Certificateholders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-HE7 (the
More

STIPULATED REMAND

(Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2015-00183326)

Plaintiff, on his own behalf, and Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), National Default Servicing Corporation ("NDSC"), and U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank N.A., as Trustee for Certificateholders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-HE7 (the "Trust") (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby recite and stipulate, subject to the Court's approval as provided for herein, as follows:

RECITALS

1. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter styled as Brian Kindsvater v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., National Default Servicing Corporation, US Bank, NA, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2015-00183326. Defendant SPS was served with the Complaint on August 20, 2015.

2. On September 18, 2015, Defendants removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.

3. On September 25, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion To Dismiss.

4. That same day, Plaintiff emailed Defendants' counsel and informed them that removal was improper because prior to Defendants' filing of their Notice of Removal on September 18, 2015, Plaintiff had filed an Amended Complaint naming additional defendants whom are residents of the State of California.

5. At the time Defendants' counsel filed the Notice of Removal, they were unaware of the filing of an Amended Complaint.

STIPULATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the Parties stipulate to remand of this action back to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Upon reading the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, therefore, IT IS SO ORDERED that this action is remanded back to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

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