Fannie Mae v. Lopez

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Ex Parte 4 Application for an Order Shortening Time for Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand; REQUIRING Defendant to Pay Filing Fee; and SETTING DEADLINE for Opposition signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/19/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO

8
9
10
11

FANNIE MAE A/K/A FEDERAL
NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,

12

Case No.: 1:11-CV-00757-OWW-JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO REMAND (DOC. 4); REQUIRING
DEFENDANT TO PAY FILING FEE;
AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR
OPPOSITION

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

LEONOR LOPEZ,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION’S (hereinafter

18 “Plaintiff”) requests an order shortening time for a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Doc. 4.
19

Defendant removed this unlawful detainer action concerning real property in Bakersfield, California

20 (“Subject Property”) to federal court on May 10, 2011. Doc. 1. Plaintiff was electronically served
21 notice of removal the same day. See Doc. 1, proof of service. Plaintiff waited until July 18, 2011 to
22 file its motion to remand, along with its simultaneous ex parte request to shorten time for the hearing
23 on the motion to remand, claiming it will be prejudiced if it is “forced to wait almost one month
24 before its Motion to Remand can be heard ... while Plaintiff carries the burden of the ownership costs
25 of the Subject Property.” Doc. 4 at 3. Plaintiff’s own delay of more than two months belies its claim
26 of hardship and counsels against shortening time for the hearing on the motion to remand in an
27 already overburdened court.
28

Nevertheless, a Court may sua sponte examine its own subject matter jurisdiction at any time.
-1-

1

Plaintiff argues that the bases for removal offered by Defendant are invalid. Doc. 4. Defendant,

2 whose motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on May 20, 2011, Doc. 3, has not paid the
3 filing fee. Defendant shall have until Thursday, July 28, 2011 to pay the filing fee. If and only if
4 payment is accomplished on or before that deadline, Defendant may also file a brief in opposition to
5 Plaintiff’s motion to remand. That brief shall not exceed 10 pages in length and shall also be filed on
6 or before Thursday, July 28, 2011. The Court will then determine whether further briefing and/or
7 oral argument is necessary.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 DATED: July 19, 2011.
10
11
12

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-