HSBC Bank USA v. Valencia et al

Filing 18

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion to REMAND to Kern County Superior Court Pursuant ot 28 U.S.C. § 1447(C), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 2/11/10: Certified Copy of Remand Order sent to Kern County Superior Court. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Eric Houser (SBN 130079) Joshua H. Abel (SBN 244592) HOUSER & ALLISON A Professional Corporation 9970 Research Drive Irvine, California 92618 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, NA, As Trustee on Behalf of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-ASAP1 Asset Backed PassThrough Certificates UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTEN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) HSBC BANK USA, NA, AS ) TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF ACE SECURITIES CORP. HOME EQUITY ) ) LOAN TRUST AND FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ACE ) SECURITIES CORP. HOME EQUITY ) LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-ASAP1 ) ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH ) ) CERTIFICATES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ERIC VALENCIA, HILDA ) VALENCIA, ) ) Defendants. ) Case No.: 1:09-CV-01260-OWW-JLT ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND TO KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1447(C) Hon.: Oliver W. Wanger

Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, NA, As Trustee on Behalf of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-ASAP1 Asset Backed Pass-Through

1 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Certificates' ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand the above-captioned matter to the Superior Court of California, County of Kern was called on February 8, 2010 at the 10:00 a.m. calendar call. Joshua Abel of Houser & Allison, APC appeared on behalf of plaintiff by telephonic appearance. Defendants, in pro per, appeared in the Court. Defendants did not file any written opposition to the motion. After consideration of Plaintiff's motion and oral argument at the time of the hearing, the Court issued and served its Memorandum of Decision and Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion To Remand on February 10, 2010 as Document 16. This memorandum sets forth the Court's reasoning in detail. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Decision, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion To Remand as follows: (1) (2) this basis. Defendants have not shown that the removal was proper. Support for removal does not exist for diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. As a result, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, and Plaintiff's Motion To Remand is GRANTED. This case is ORDERED remanded to the Kern County Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: February 11, 2010 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER Senior United States District Court Judge Federal question jurisdiction is lacking and removal cannot be Diversity jurisdiction is lacking and removal cannot be justified on justified on this basis.

2 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com