U.S. Bank National Association v. Richelle, 3:18-CV-971. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20190415940
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 19 th DAY OF MARCH, 2019, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 15), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Pro se Defendant's Objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED. Pro se Defendant's arguments do not vitiate the well-grounded findings in the R&R that this Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action such that removal would be proper. This state court mortgage for
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 19 th DAY OF MARCH, 2019, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 15), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Pro se Defendant's Objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED. Pro se Defendant's arguments do not vitiate the well-grounded findings in the R&R that this Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action such that removal would be proper. This state court mortgage fore..
More
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2019, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Schwab's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 15), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Pro se Defendant's Objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED. Pro se Defendant's arguments do not vitiate the well-grounded findings in the R&R that this Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action such that removal would be proper. This state court mortgage foreclosure action was brought under Pennsylvania law. No federal question is presented which would provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Pro se Defendant's contention that Plaintiff's actions in seeking foreclosure implicate due process under the Constitution does not transform this action into one based on federal question jurisdiction, as it is the Plaintiff's "statement of his own cause of action" that determines whether the action is brought under federal law. (Doc. 15 at 4 (quoting Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009)). And pro se Defendant is a resident of Pennsylvania, making it improper to remove this case solely based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
2. The R&R (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
3. Plaintiff's motion for remand to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. The above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County.
4. Pro se Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to pro se Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.
Source: Leagle
