Martinez-Avalos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 27

STIPULATION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 2/6/12. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

MARY KATE SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 180203)
MICHELLE T. MCGUINNESS (State Bar No. 257151)
SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10

PEDRO MARTINEZ-AVALOS, an
11 individual,
12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 3:11-cv-06620-JCS SC
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
REMAND TO ALAMEDA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; REGIONAL
SERVICE CORPORATION, a California
15 corporation; and DOES 1 through 20 Inclusive,
16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff Pedro Martinez-Avalos and defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)
and Regional Service Corporation, through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows:
1.

Wells Fargo removed this action by filing and serving a notice of removal on

December 22, 2011.
2.

On January 23, 2012, plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, in which he

alleged that the amount is controversy was $65,000.
3.

Also on January 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court

25

on the ground that, as amended, the complaint does not satisfy the amount in controversy

26

requirement for diversity jurisdiction, among other reasons.

27
28
55000/0068/2117907.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR REMAND

1

4.

Without conceding that its removal of the action was unjustified or that diversity

2

jurisdiction is lacking, Wells Fargo consents to remand to avoid further expense with regard to

3

procedural issues not addressed to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.

4

5.

Regional Service Corporation does not oppose the remand.

5

6.

For these reasons, the parties agree that the case should be remanded to the

6
7
8

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, where it was originally filed.
7.

Wells Fargo and Regional Service Corporation shall have 30 days from the date of

the entry of the attached Order to respond to the First Amended Complaint.

9
10

DATED: February 6, 2012

NICK PACHECO LAW GROUP

11
12

By: /s/ Nick Pacheco
Nick Pacheco, Esq.

13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
PEDRO MARTINEZ-AVALOS

14
15
16

DATED: February 6, 2012

SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation

17
18

By: /s/ Michelle McGuinness
Michelle McGuinness

19

Attorneys for Defendant
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

20
21
22

DATED: February 6, 2012

23

ROBINSON TAIT, PS

By: /s/ Nicolas A. Daluiso
Nicolas A. Daluiso

24
25

Attorneys for Defendant
REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION

26
27
28

-255000/0068/2117907.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR REMAND

1

ORDER

2

On the basis of the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5
6

This action be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Alameda.
2.

Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with the

removal and remand of this action. No award of costs or fees is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

8

§ 1447(c).

11

RED

Samuel Conti S SO ORDE
IT I
Judge of the United States District Court
Northern District of California
ti
on

amuel C

NO

12

, 2012

Judge S

14

A

H

ER

LI

RT

13

R NIA

2/6/12

FO

DATED:

UNIT
ED

10

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

9

S

7

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-355000/0068/2117907.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR REMAND