SMITH v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., 2:15-CV-70. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20170710997
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD , District Judge . On March 22, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the Court to remand this case under the abstention doctrine set out in Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Dkt. No. 47. Their motion was based on the fact that a state proceeding that Plaintiffs alleged to be parallel was pending before the Georgia Supreme Court. Id . at 7 (referencing case number S17C1005). That Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari on June 30, 2017. See Sup. Ct. of
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD , District Judge . On March 22, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the Court to remand this case under the abstention doctrine set out in Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Dkt. No. 47. Their motion was based on the fact that a state proceeding that Plaintiffs alleged to be parallel was pending before the Georgia Supreme Court. Id . at 7 (referencing case number S17C1005). That Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari on June 30, 2017. See Sup. Ct. of G..
More
ORDER
LISA GODBEY WOOD, District Judge.
On March 22, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the Court to remand this case under the abstention doctrine set out in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Dkt. No. 47. Their motion was based on the fact that a state proceeding that Plaintiffs alleged to be parallel was pending before the Georgia Supreme Court. Id. at 7 (referencing case number S17C1005). That Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari on June 30, 2017. See Sup. Ct. of Ga., 2017 Denied Certiorari Petitions, http://www.gasupreme.us/granted-denied-petitions/2017-denied/ (last accessed July 6, 2017). Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand under the Younger Abstention Doctrine, dkt. no. 47, is DENIED as moot.
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the Court to stay its ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss until after it resolved their Younger remand motion. Dkt. No. 50. That motion is likewise DENIED as moot.
At the same time. Plaintiffs moved the Court to allow them another opportunity to amend their complaint in the event the Court would otherwise dismiss their case. Dkt. No. 51 at 3-5. The Court will take that request under consideration when it decides the motions to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is therefore DIRECTED to terminate the motion.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
