Rickman v. NDEX West, L.L.C. et al

Filing 31

ORDER REMANDING CASE, granting 30 Stipulation to Remand Case to State Court and Extend Time for Response to First Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 02/22/2012. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2012)

Download PDF
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP Case4:12-cv-00146-DMR Document30 Filed02/21/12 Page1 of 5 1 Robert A. Bailey (# 214688) rbailey@afrct.com 2 Daniel A. Armstrong (#270175) darmstrong@afrct.com 3 ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN, CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP 4 199 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 600 Pasadena, California 91101-2459 5 Telephone: (626) 535-1900 Facsimile: (626) 577-7764 6 Attorneys for 7 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., 8 f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB (“Wells Fargo”) 9 (erroneously named herein as “Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., aka Wachovia Mortgage, a division 10 of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB”) 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 CHANTAL RICKMAN, Plaintiffs, 16 17 CASE NO.: 4:12-CV-00146-DMR [The Honorable Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu] v. 18 NDEx WEST, L.L.C.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., aka WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, 19 a division of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and F/k/a WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB 20 and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 21 Defendants. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT AND EXTEND TIME FOR RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: Time: Ctrm: March 22, 2012 11:00 a.m. 4 22 23 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND THE HONORABLE 24 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONNA M. RYU: 25 Plaintiff Chantal Rickman and Defendants NDeX West, L.L.C. and Wells Fargo Bank, 26 N.A., successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, 27 FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB (“Wells Fargo”) (collectively “Defendants”) through their 28 1 CASE NO.: 4:12-CV-00146-DMR STIPULATION Case4:12-cv-00146-DMR Document30 Filed02/21/12 Page2 of 5 1 respective counsel, hereby stipulate that (1) this case be remanded to the Superior Court of 2 California for the County of Contra Costa; (2) the hearings currently scheduled for March 22, 3 2012 on Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and 4 Motion to Remand to State Court should be vacated; (3) Plaintiff shall file the first amended 5 complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa and Defendants 6 will file a response to the first amended complaint within 30 days of its filing date in state court. RECITALS A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP 7 8 1. On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Superior Court of 9 California for the County of Contra Costa for a judicial determination of the parties’ lien 10 priorities and interests in the real property located at 2906 Morgan Drive, San Ramon, California 11 (the “Property”) and to stop Wells Fargo from foreclosing on the Property until the determination 12 was made. 13 2. On January 9, 2012, Defendants removed this action to the United States District 14 Court for the Northern District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 15 §1332. 16 3. On January 30, 2012, Wells Fargo filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint which 17 was set for hearing on March 22, 2012. 18 4. On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding Kristen 19 Valperga and Placer Foreclosure Inc. as parties to the action. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed 20 a First Motion to Amend/Correct Original Complaint, which was set for hearing on March 22, 21 2012. 22 5. On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Remand to State Court, 23 which was set for hearing on March 22, 2012. STIPULATION 24 25 THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE: 26 1. That this case be remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of 27 Contra Costa; 28 2. The hearings currently scheduled for March 22, 2012 on Wells Fargo’s Motion to 2 CASE NO.: 4:12-CV-00146-DMR STIPULATION Case4:12-cv-00146-DMR Document30 Filed02/21/12 Page4 of 5 1)ismiss and Plaintitis Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Remand to State Court are accordingly moot and should be vacated; and j 4 3. Plaintiff shall tile the first amended complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa and l)efenclants vill tile a response to the complaint within 30 days ol its filing date in state first amended court. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 7 $ Dated: Februaryl. 2012 LAW OF ICES OF \VAYNE V.R. SMITH 9 I () A ttornev for Pin i nfl if Chantal Ricknian 12 13 Dated: FchruarvZ/. 201 2 AN.GI.lN. FLE WELLING. RASMUSSEN. CAM P131 14 15 z 16 Attorneys br Dcibndnnt \VELLS FARGO BANK. N.A.. successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest. N,A.. Cka Wachovia Mort2aue. ESB. 17km World Savinus Bank, FSB (“Wells Faruo”) 17 z l8 19 20 I)ated: Februarv20 1 2 BARRETT DAF F TREDER & 21 -Y) Edward A. 1’rcder 23 24 /\ttorneys Lr Deièndant NDe\ West. L.L.C. 26 27 28 CASE NO.: 4:12-C V-00146-I)MR Si! l’VLATION Case4:12-cv-00146-DMR Document30 Filed02/21/12 Page3 of 5 ORDER 1 2 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING: 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Superior Court of California 4 for the County of Contra Costa; 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearings currently scheduled for March 22, 2012 6 on Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to S UNIT ED February 22, 2012 DATED: __________________ DERED O OR IT IS S RT 12 ER H 13 14 FO . Ryu onna M Judge D LI 11 R NIA DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 10 A 9 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 8 NO A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP 7 Remand to State Court are vacated. N F D IS T IC T O R C 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CASE NO.: 4:12-CV-00146-DMR STIPULATION

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?