Perry v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/18/13 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 6/24/13 18 are adopted with the stated modification; Defendant's 5/16/13 motion to dismiss 5 is denied as moot; and this action is remanded to the Placer County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD PERRY, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 No. 2:13-cv-0935 GEB DAD PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On June 24, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which 20 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings 22 and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis, except for his citation to 26 California ex rel. Bates v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-1429 27 GEB CMK, 2010 WL 2889061 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010), for its holding about the citizenship of 28 Wells Fargo, because that opinion is withdrawn and superseded by Gosal v. Wells Fargo Bank, 1 1 N.A., No. 2:12-cv-2024 GEB CKD, 2012 WL 4961696, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2012), in which 2 I determined that the interpretation in American Surety Co. v. Bank of California, 133 F.2d 160, 3 162 (9th Cir.1943), of “the predecessor statute to 28 U.S.C. § 1348,” should be followed; and 4 therefore, “a national bank is [also] located in the State where it maintains its ‘principal place of 5 business.’” 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 24, 2013 (Doc No. 18) are adopted with the stated modification; 9 10 2. Defendant’s May 16, 2013 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is denied as moot; and 11 12 3. This action is remanded to the Placer County Superior Court. Date: 7/18/2013 13 ___________________________________ GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 DEAC_Signature-END: 18 19 61khh4bb 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?