Iniguez et al v. Vantium Capital Inc et al

Filing 55

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND by Judge William Alsup [granting 23 Motion to Remand; finding as moot 18 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 19 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 20 Motion to Dismiss\. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

STEWART INIGUEZ and SHERRILL
INIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

No. C 13-00037 WHA
v.
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO REMAND

VANTIUM CAPITAL, INC. a/k/a ACQURA
LOAN SERVICES, ALSO AS ATTORNEYIN-FACT FOR CASTLE PEAK 2010-1 LOAN
TRUST; CITIMORTGAGE INC.; MORTGAGE
MASTER, INC. d/b/a MORTGAGE MASTER
PACIFIC; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
COMPANY; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES
1–100 INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
/

In this foreclosure action, plaintiffs Stewart and Sherrill Iniguez commenced the present

22

action in Sonoma County Superior Court. Following defendants’ removal of the action to

23

federal court in January 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. A prior order on the motion to

24

remand found that the parties were not diverse (Dkt. No. 49). With regard to federal-question

25

jurisdiction, plaintiffs’ complaint made several ambiguous references to federal law, although

26

the complaint contained only state law claims for relief. The order provided that plaintiffs would

27

be allowed one week to “dismiss all federal claims with prejudice in an unambiguous pleading

28

and limit the relief sought to state law claims,” after which the court would remand the case.

1

Plaintiffs have now timely filed a first amended complaint which contains no reference

2

to federal law and, therefore, complies with the order regarding remand (Dkt. No. 52).

3

Accordingly, and pursuant to the order regarding remand, plaintiffs’ motion to remand is hereby

4

GRANTED and defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall remand

5

this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: April 1, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2