Filed: Dec. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Hudson City Savings Bank, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s notice of related case and motion to transfer. (ECF No. 5.) Defendants state that the case sub judice, and the previously adjudicated matter Bauman et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., 12-cv-933, are related. Furthermore, because Magistrate Judge Abel presided over 12-cv-933, the Defendants ask this Court
Summary: ORDER GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Hudson City Savings Bank, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s notice of related case and motion to transfer. (ECF No. 5.) Defendants state that the case sub judice, and the previously adjudicated matter Bauman et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., 12-cv-933, are related. Furthermore, because Magistrate Judge Abel presided over 12-cv-933, the Defendants ask this Court ..
More
ORDER
GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Hudson City Savings Bank, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s notice of related case and motion to transfer. (ECF No. 5.) Defendants state that the case sub judice, and the previously adjudicated matter Bauman et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., 12-cv-933, are related. Furthermore, because Magistrate Judge Abel presided over 12-cv-933, the Defendants ask this Court to transfer the case to Judge Abel to "avoid...duplication of effort and expense by the Court." (Id. at 2). Though Plaintiffs failed to respond to Defendants' motion, it is clear from the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Report that the Parties do not unanimously consent to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Abel. (ECF No. 12.) Additionally, this case has previously been found to be related to 12-cv-933. (ECF No. 9.) Because both of the arguments raised in Defendants' motion have since been addressed, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
