Wilson v. Lasalle Bank NA et al

Filing 25

ORDER REMANDING CASE. (vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2010)

Wilson v. Lasalle Bank NA et al

Doc. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOHN R WILSON, JOSE AND MAYRA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, v LASALLE BANK NA, LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP AND DOES 1-10, Defendants. / No C 10-2902 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this foreclosure-related matter in state court in October 2009. plaintiffs removed the action. Id. Doc #1 at 1. In July 2010,

It is well-established "that the plaintiff[s], who chose the forum, [are] bound by that choice and may not remove the case." Scott v Communications Svcs, Inc, 762 F Supp 147, 149-50 (SD Tex 1991) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp v Sheets, 313 US 100, 107-09 (1941); Tindle v Ledbetter, 627 F Supp 406, 407 (MD La 1986);

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Estate of Spragins v Citizens National Bank of Evansville, 563 F Supp 424, 426 (ND Miss 1983); Southland Corp v Estridge, 456 F Supp 1296, 1298, 1300-01 (CD Cal 1978); Ford Motor Credit Co v Liles, 399 F Supp 1282, 1284 (WD Okla 1975); Coditron Corp v AFA Protective Systems, Inc, 392 F Supp 158, 161 (SDNY 1975); Mohawk Rubber Co v Terrell, 13 F2d 266, 266 (WD Mo 1926)). In short, 28

USC § 1441 provides defendants ---- not plaintiffs ---- with the option of removing certain complaints filed in state court to federal court. Because plaintiffs chose to file their complaint in state

court, they must pursue their claims there. The court therefore REMANDS this action to Alameda County superior court. The clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all motions and

to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

2