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
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?