Navarro et al v. Bank of America, et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/21/2010 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent. CASE CLOSED(Duong, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / This case concerns plaintiffs' home mortgage. Plaintiffs v. ORDER BANK OF AMERICA FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LAOSN, INC.; AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; OMEGA REALTY AND HOME LOANS; LARRY LEE HARTMAN; and DOES 1-20 inclusive, GUADALUPE NAVARRO AND DANIEL NAVARRO NO. CIV. S-10-0457 LKK/DAD Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

initially filed in state court. Defendants removed, and then moved to dismiss all claims. (Dkt. No. 10.) This motion was noticed for hearing for April 19, 2010. Pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule

230(c), plaintiffs opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on April 5, 2010. On March 25, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. This complaint omitted, among other things, plaintiffs' claim under the 1

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

Real Estate Procedures Settlement Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617.

By

order of Friday, April 2, 2010, the court held that this amended complaint was untimely. (Dkt. No. 15.). The court construed the

complaint as a statement of non-opposition to dismissal of the federal claims and a motion to remand the remaining claims. Pursuant to these holdings, the court directed plaintiffs to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as to dismissal of the remaining claims by the April 5 deadline, and the court permitted defendants to file an opposition to the motion for remand. Plaintiffs opposition was submitted on April 6, 2010, one day late. In light of plaintiffs' erroneous, but not inherently

frivolous, belief that the amended complaint mooted the motion to dismiss, the court accepts this one day delay. The court therefore rejects defendants' argument that all claims should be dismissed for failure to file a timely opposition. The court previously indicated its belief that, absent a further basis for federal jurisdiction, remand of the state law claims was proper. Defendants have not identified a basis for Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the

federal jurisdiction.

Superior Court for the State of California, County of Sacramento. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 21, 2010.

2