Wells Fargo Bank N.A v. Alvarado et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 4 Motion to Remand (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/9/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nahS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., 6 7 Plaintiff, v. 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AGUEDA ALVARADO, et al., 9 No. C 14-3529 PJH Defendants. _______________________________/ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Trustee, on 12 Behalf of Holders of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through 13 Certificates, Series 2006-12 ("Wells Fargo") for an order remanding the above-entitled 14 action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. Pro se defendants Agueda 15 Alvarado and Hector Alvarado ("defendants") did not file an opposition to the motion within 16 the time allowed under Civil Local Rule 7-3. Having read the plaintiff's papers and carefully 17 considered its arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the 18 motion. 19 Wells Fargo filed the complaint in this unlawful detainer action on December 11, 20 2013 (San Mateo County Sup. Ct. Case No. CLJ208869), seeking recovery of premises 21 located at 823 Shepard Way, Redwood City, California, which Wells Fargo allegedly 22 purchased on October 24, 2014 at a trustee's sale held in compliance with California Civil 23 Code ยง 2924. Wells Fargo asserts that notwithstanding the foreclosure sale, and service of 24 a three-day Notice to Quit, defendants have continued to occupy the premises without the 25 consent of Wells Fargo. 26 On January 15, 2014, defendants removed the case to this court as Case No. 27 C-14-0229, alleging diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. On January 31, 28 2014, Wells Fargo filed a motion to remand. On February 11, 2014, the court issued an 1 order to show cause ("OSC") why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject 2 matter jurisdiction. Defendants did not respond to the OSC by the deadline set by the 3 court. On March 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James issued a report, 4 recommending that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Wells 5 Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Alvarado (No. C-14-0229, N.D. Cal.) Doc. 9. On March 28, 2014, the 6 Hon. Jon S. Tigar issued an order adopting the report and recommendation, and 7 remanding the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 8 On May 30, 2014, defendants removed the unlawful detainer action as an adversary The United States Bankruptcy Court remanded the unlawful detainer action to the San 11 For the Northern District of California proceeding (No. 14-3060, N.D. Cal. (Bankr.)) to Agueda Alvarado's bankruptcy petition. 10 United States District Court 9 Mateo County Superior Court on July 2, 2014. 12 On August 5, 2014. defendants again removed the unlawful detainer case to this 13 court, alleging diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. This is the case now 14 pending. The notice of removal and attached documents appear identical in every respect 15 to the documents that were filed with the first notice of removal on January 15, 2014, 16 except that defendants have changed the dates on the signature pages, from January 14, 17 2014, to August 5, 2014. 18 For the reasons stated in the March 4, 2014 report and recommendation, which was 19 adopted by the court on March 28, 2014, the court finds that this case must be 20 REMANDED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, the clerk is hereby instructed to 21 accept no further removals of this unlawful detainer action (San Mateo County Sup. Ct. 22 Case No. CLJ208869) filed by Agueda Alvarado or Hector Alvarado, unless the filing is first 23 approved by a judge of this court. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 9, 2014 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 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?