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).
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?