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)

Download PDF
**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

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?