Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Thompson et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING THE ACTION TO ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 5 13 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/20/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. C 12-5634 SI Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING THE ACTION TO ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT v. ROBERT THOMPSON, et al., 12 Defendants. / 13 14 Now before the Court is plaintiff Well Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to remand this action to 15 Alameda County Superior Court. Defendants have not opposed the motion, requested an extension of 16 time, or otherwise contacted the Court. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that 17 the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing scheduled 18 for February 22, 2013. 19 On August 24, 2012, plaintiff filed an action in Alameda County Superior Court against 20 defendants Robert Thompson and Virginia Thompson for unlawful detainer. Defendants removed the 21 case to this Court on November 2, 2012, and plaintiff moved to remand the action on December 18, 22 2012. 23 Recommendation recommending that the Court grant plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Report and 24 Recommendation was served on defendants by mail. Defendants made no objections to the Report and 25 Recommendation by the January 25, 2013 deadline, or thereafter. On January 11, 2013, Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte filed a Report and 26 Lacking both parties’ consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, the case was reassigned here 27 and on January 14, 2013, plaintiff again filed a motion to remand. The Court has reviewed the Report 28 and Recommendation, the complaint, and the motion to remand, and concludes that the case should be 1 2 3 remanded because this Court lacks jurisdiction as set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and REMANDS the case to the Alameda County Superior Court. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: February 20 , 2013 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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?