Rudy Ramirez et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge George H. Wu remanding case to Riverside County Superior Court, Case number RIC1903787. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)

Download PDF
REMAND/JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. EDCV 19-1524-GW-KKx Title Rudy Ramirez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. Present: The Honorable Date October 7, 2019 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 Plaintiffs Rudy and Sandra Ramirez as pro pers filed the present lawsuit in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, Wachovia Mortgage, World Savings Bank and Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP (“Barrett”) alleging causes of action for: 1) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5; 2) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6; 3) Quiet Title; 4) Cancellation of Instrument; and 5) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. See Docket No. 1-1. Barrett is named as a defendant in the third and fourth causes of action. Id. Plaintiffs allege that Barrett “acting at the behest of Defendant Wells Fargo, recorded a Notice of Trustee Sale” and that “Plaintiffs are seeking for the sale date to be cancelled and to be taken in consideration for an approval of a loan modification.” Id. at ¶¶ 18, 20. While recognizing that certain members of Barrett were California citizens, Wells Fargo nevertheless removed the matter to federal court on the basis of diversity contending that Barrett could be ignored because it was a fraudulently joined defendant. See Docket No. 1 at 5-7. Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 7. This Court considered that motion, but initially found that there was an issue as to subject matter jurisdiction because it appeared that Barrett was not a fraudulently joined defendant. See 9/30/2019 Tentative Ruling, Docket No. 15. The issues were argued at the hearing on the motion and the matter was taken under submission. Id. After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court adopts its tentative ruling as its final decision on the issue of alleged fraudulent joinder finding that Barrett has not been fraudulently joined and, hence, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, the case is ordered remanded back to state court forthwith. : Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL JG Page 1 of 1

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?