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: (415) 398-3344
Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
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
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?