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)

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Wells Fargo, because that opinion is withdrawn and superseded by Gosal v. Wells Fargo Bank,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