Peters v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/13/16 ORDERING that A second hearing on Wells Fargo's MOTION to DISMISS (ECF No. 3 ) and Plaintiff's MOTION to REMAND (ECF No. 6 ) is SET for 11/9/2016 at 10:00 AM. For these mot ions, the parties may rely on the briefs they have already filed. However, any party wishing to file supplemental briefing, shall do so no later than 10/26/16. The 10/19/16 hearing on AWL's MOTION to DISMISS (ECF No. 27 ) is CONTINUED to 1 1/9/16, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned. Plaintiff shall file his Opposition, or Statement of Non- Opposition, to AWL's MOTION no later than 10/26/16, and AWL shall file its Reply, if any, no later than 11/2/16. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to the MOTION in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that AWL be DISMISSED from this lawsuit. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK R. PETERS,
No. 2:16-cv-0834 JAM AC (PS)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Plaintiff is proceeding in this removed action pro se. The action was accordingly referred
to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21).
I. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Pending before the undersigned are (1) the motion of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
Fargo”) to dismiss (ECF No. 3), and (2) plaintiff’s motion to remand the action for lack of
jurisdiction (ECF No. 6). The parties were heard at oral argument on these motions on
August 31, 2016. Plaintiff represented himself. Wells Fargo was represented by Melissa C.
After the hearing, Wells Fargo filed an “Errata” to its Notice of Removal. ECF No. 24.
The Errata explained that the original Notice “inadvertently omitted pages 23 and 24 of Exhibit A
(Complaint).” ECF No. 24 at 1. The hearing on this matter was limited to whether Wells Fargo
had shown that the court could exercise diversity jurisdiction, because the pages of the Complaint
that were included in the original Notice failed to show that the action met the $75,000
jurisdictional minimum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The omitted pages, which are now included in the Errata, show that plaintiff seeks an
award of $150,000 and “cancellation of the Note and Deed of Trust.” See ECF No. 25 at 27 ¶¶ 7,
8. Because the hearing did not address any remaining jurisdictional issues, or the merits of the
motion to dismiss, the matter will be re-set for further hearing.
II. AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER
Defendant America’s Wholesale Lender (“AWL”) has filed a motion to dismiss, and
noticed it for hearing on October 19, 2016. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff has not responded to the
motion. The hearing will accordingly be continued, and plaintiff will be given another
opportunity to respond.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A second hearing on Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) and plaintiff’s
motion to remand (ECF No. 6) is SET for November 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. For these motions,
the parties may rely on the briefs they have already filed. However, any party wishing to file
supplemental briefing, shall do so no later than October 26, 2016.
2. The October 19, 2016 hearing on AWL’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is
CONTINUED to November 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned. Plaintiff shall file his
Opposition, or Statement of Non-Opposition, to AWL’s motion no later than October 26, 2016,
and AWL shall file its Reply, if any, no later than November 2, 2016. Plaintiff is cautioned that
failure to respond to the motion in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that AWL be
dismissed from this lawsuit.
DATED: October 13, 2016
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?