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)
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?