Colbert v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/18/11 ORDERING the Final Pretrial Conference reset for 6/27/11 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. A JOINT final pretrial statement shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial conference, which shall address Defendant's averments concerning federal jurisdiction, specifically including the amount in controversy.(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RANDY COLBERT,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.,

12

Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-00747-GEB-GGH
ORDER CONTINUING FINAL
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

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

Defendant filed a “Unilateral Pretrial Report” on May 16,
2011, in which it states, inter alia:
2.
On May 7, I sent an e-mail to Larry
Lulofs, counsel for plaintiff, pointing out that we
needed to confer about preparing the [joint
pretrial statement (“JPS”)]. I did not hear back
from Mr. Lulofs, but last week I received a
telephone call from Mr. Lulofs’ office informing me
that he had significant medical issues which
probably would prevent him from doing anything with
regard to the [JPS].
3.
This case was removed from Solano County
Superior Court. The basis for Federal jurisdiction
was diversity of citizenship, with the amount in
controversy under the allegations of the complaint
being in excess of $75,000. However, after
conducting discovery it has become apparent that
the amount genuinely in controversy is in all
probability only a small fraction of that figure;
the claim at this point is limited to a possible
refund of approximately $15,000 in payments
allegedly made pursuant to a forbearance agreement.
While Wells Fargo disputes that plaintiff is
entitled to anything, it does appear that the
amount in controversy may be insufficient to
support Federal jurisdiction.

1

1

4.
In addition, Mr. Lulofs has previously
indicated to me that he is going to not pursue some
of the causes of action, such as fraud. However,
these causes have not been dismissed, and therefore
it is essentially impossible for me to estimate
things like how long the case will take to try or
what issues remain to be tried. If the case is
limited to the refund issue, which would be a
breach of contract claim, a bench trial should take
one day at most.

2
3
4
5
6

5.
Under
the
circumstances,
it is
respectfully suggested that both the pretrial and
trial dates (August 23) be continued for something
like two months. In the interim, the parties should
be able to either settle the case or agree on a
stipulation limiting the case to the breach of
contract claim, which in turn could result in a
remand to Solano Superior Court.

7
8
9
10
11

(ECF No. 15, 1:23-2:15.)

12

Therefore, the final pretrial conference set for May 23, 2011,

13

is continued to commence at 1:30 p.m. on June 27, 2011. A JOINT final

14

pretrial statement shall be filed no later than seven (7) days prior to

15

the final pretrial conference, which shall address Defendant’s averments

16

concerning federal jurisdiction, specifically including the amount in

17

controversy.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 18, 2011

20
21
22

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2