Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cargado

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT MOTION FOR TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/25/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2012)

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
13

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
MOTION FOR TO REMAND

CATALINA R. CARGADO, et al.,

16

No. C 12-01663 RS

Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

This matter was initiated as an unlawful detainer action in San Francisco Superior Court.

19

Defendant Catalina R. Cargado filed a notice of removal, asserting both federal question and

20

diversity jurisdiction. The case was randomly assigned to a magistrate judge upon filing of the

21

notice of removal. Plaintiff Wells Fargo moved to remand, and sought to recover its attorney fees

22

and costs. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion to remand be

23

granted, but that no award of fees and cost be made. The matter was then reassigned to the

24

undersigned for disposition.

25

The time for objecting to the Report and Recommendation has expired and no objections

26

have been filed. For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, removal jurisdiction

27

based on a federal question does not exist. Furthermore, even assuming the amount in controversy

28

requirement for removal based on diversity of citizenship could be deemed satisfied, Cargado is a

1

citizen of California and therefore not entitled to removal on diversity grounds. See, 28 U.S.C. §

2

1441(b)(2). (A civil action “removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a)

3

. . . may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is

4

a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”) For the reasons identified by the magistrate

5

judge, however, a fee and cost award is not warranted.

6

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation that the motion to remand

7

be granted and that the request for fees and costs be denied. This matter is hereby remanded to San

8

Francisco Superior Court.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Dated: 6/25/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Catalina R. Cargado
555 44th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121

6
7
8

DATED: 6/25/12

9
/s/ Chambers Staff

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3