Hector Alvarado et al v. June E. Toft et al
Filing
21
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. Wu: Because there no longer appears to be any basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS this action forthwith to Los Angeles Superior Court. The Court VACATES the hearing on the Motion to Remand scheduled for February 27, 2017. Case remanded to SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Case number VC065715 (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (cr)
REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-7953-GW(SKx)
Title
Hector Alvarado v. June E. Toft, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
February 22, 2017
GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Javier Gonzalez
None Present
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present
None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ORDER
On October 25, 2016, the United States, on behalf of real party-defendant in interest Julian
Castro, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”) removed the above-entitled action to this Court. See Notice of Removal, Docket No. 1. In the
Notice of Removal, the United States indicated that HUD’s Foreclosure Commissioner Mortgage Lender
Services (“Foreclosure Commissioner”) received notice of an ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) filed in Los Angeles Superior Court related to foreclosure proceedings on a
property located at 14540 Cullen Street, Whittier, California 90603 (the “Property”).1 Id. ¶¶ 2-9. HUD
is not a named party in the underlying action and did not receive notice of the TRO, however, the United
States asserts that HUD is the real party-defendant in interest because HUD holds the First Deed of Trust
for the Property, as well as the Adjustable Rate Home Conversion Second Deed of Trust for the
Property. Id.; see also id. Exs. A-C, Docket Nos. 1-1 to 1-3. On August 18, 2016, the Foreclosure
Commissioner recorded a Notice of Default and Foreclosure Sale for the Property on behalf of HUD.
Id. ¶ 6; Ex. A.
The United States removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which authorizes the
removal of civil actions against “[t]he United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person
acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual
capacity . . . .” See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). However, on January 19, 2017, the United States filed a
Motion to Remand this action to Los Angeles Superior Court.2 See Mot. to Remand, Docket No. 20.
1
The United States did not attach any documents from the underlying state court action to its Notice of Removal,
and it is therefore unclear what claims and factual allegations the TRO raised.
2
None of the named parties in the underlying action have filed a response to the Motion to Remand.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JG
Page 1 of 2
REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-7953-GW(SKx)
Date
Title
February 22, 2017
Hector Alvarado v. June E. Toft, et al.
The United States asserts that on November 23, 2016, Plaintiff Hector Alvarado purchased the Property
by submitting a deposit, and submitted the remaining funds for the purchase on January 6, 2017. Id. at
2:16-21; see also Decl. of Abigail Greenspan (“Greenspan Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3. As a result, the United States
contends that it no longer has any interest in the Property, and requests that the case be remanded for
resolution of any disputes between the remaining parties. See Mot. to Remand at 3:1-3.
Because there no longer appears to be any basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, the Court
REMANDS this action forthwith to Los Angeles Superior Court. The Court VACATES the hearing on
the Motion to Remand scheduled for February 27, 2017.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JG
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?