U.S. Bank National Association v. Llopis et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/18/2015 ADOPTING 24 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERING the defendants to not file any more removal petitions and/or notices of removal of this unlawful detainer action or related action involvi ng the same subject matter; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to lodge any further removal petitions and/or notices of removal and any accompanying documents for review by a judge of this Court to determine whether the filing is another removal of this sa me case or another case involving the same subject matter; ORDERING that the screening requirement remain in effect until the resolution of the unlawful detainer litigation in state court; ORDERING the plaintiff in the state court action to file a no tice under this case caption informing the Court that the state court litigation has been completed, including a copy of the document(s) showing the resolution of the case; REMANDING this matter to Superior Court of California, County of Solano, case number FCM122581. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. NATIONAL BANK ASSOCIATION, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-1585-TLN-EFB PS v. ORDER ROTONDA LLOPIS, GERALD LLOPIS, 15 Defendants. 16 On January 21, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 17 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant Rotonda Llopis filed 20 objections on February 6, 2015, and they were considered by the undersigned. 21 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 22 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 23 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 24 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 25 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 28 ///// 1 1 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed January 21, 2015, are ADOPTED. 5 2. Defendants are ordered not to file any more removal petitions and/or notices of 6 7 removal of this unlawful detainer action or related action involving the same subject matter. 3. If Defendants submit any further removal petitions and/or notices of removal in this 8 Court, the Clerk shall lodge the petition and/or notice and accompanying documents. The Clerk 9 shall not file the documents until it is reviewed by a judge of this Court to determine whether the 10 filing is another removal of this same case or another case involving the same subject matter. 11 This screening requirement shall remain in effect until the state court unlawful detainer litigation 12 is finally resolved. 13 4. The Plaintiff in the state court action shall file a notice under this case caption 14 informing the Court that the state court litigation has been completed. Such notice shall include a 15 copy of the document(s) showing that the case has been finally resolved. 16 17 5. This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 18, 2015 21 22 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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?