Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND AND CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/25/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

8

12
13
14
15
16

THERESA MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,

No. C 13-01622 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND AND CONTINUING
HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.
____________________________________/

17
18

On June 12, 2013, plaintiff filed what she docketed as a “response” to defendant’s pending

19

motion to dismiss, but which appears in ECF as merely another copy of defendant’s moving papers.

20

On June 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Those papers correctly identify the presiding

21

judge, but purport to set the hearing on a date that is not when law and motion matters are heard,

22

and on substantially less notice than required by the rules. The associated docket entry reveals that

23

plaintiff apparently was attempting to set the matter on the calendar of the judicial officer to which

24

this action was previously assigned.

25

The motion to remand attempts to establish diversity jurisdiction is lacking, but wholly fails

26

to address the arguments and authority provided by Wells Fargo as to why courts have found it to be

27

a citizen of South Dakota for the purposes of such jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

28

While plaintiff must proceed with greater care in the future, and must comply with the local rules

1

when noticing motions, her apparently inadvertent failure to file the correct document in opposition

2

to the motion to dismiss will be excused in this instance. Plaintiff shall file any written opposition

3

to the motion to dismiss no later than June 27, 2013, with any reply due one week thereafter. The

4

hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to July 25, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: 6/25/13

8

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

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