Zamora v. National City Mortgage Co. et al

Filing 30

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/18/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2011)

**E-filed 8/18/11**

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

STEVEN J. ZAMORA,
Plaintiff,

No. C 11-3703 RS
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

v.

13
14

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CO, et al.,

15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff Steven J. Zamora, appearing in pro se, has filed a motion to remand this action to

18

state court, accompanied by an “ex parte application,” seeking to have the matter resolved on

19

shortened time in advance of his deadline to oppose the pending motions to dismiss, which are

20

presently set to be heard on September 29, 2011. Defendants correctly point out that plaintiff’s “ex

21

parte application” more properly should be construed as a motion for an order shortening time,

22

brought under Civil Local 6-3, and that it does not fully comply with the provisions of that rule as to

23

the points such motions should address.

24

Nevertheless, it does appear appropriate to resolve the remand issue prior to proceeding with

25

the motions to dismiss. While defendants are correct that plaintiff likely will have to respond to

26

similar arguments on demurrer if the matter is remanded, that does not warrant completing the

27

briefing of these motions while jurisdiction remains in doubt.

28

1

The notice of removal states that all defendants known to have been served consent to the

2

removal, but no joinders by such other defendants have been filed. Additionally, plaintiff asserts

3

that other defendants had in fact been served at the time of the notice of removal, and those

4

defendants have not filed joinders either. Thus, while the notice of removal was not necessarily

5

defective on its face, it appears that a basis for removal jurisdiction has not been established at this

6

juncture. Whether joinders would be timely if filed now raises a separate question.

7

Accordingly, good cause appearing, the hearing and briefing schedule for the motions to

plaintiff’s motion to remand. No later than September 8, 2011, plaintiff may file a reply. The

10

motion to remand will then be taken under submission without oral argument, pursuant to Civil

11
For the Northern District of California

dismiss is hereby vacated. No later than September 1, 2011, defendants shall file any opposition to

9

United States District Court

8

Local Rule 7-1(b). In the event the motion is denied, the court will set a new hearing date and

12

briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: 8/18/11

17

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2