Struski et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 22

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered In light of defendants assent, plaintiffs motion for remand and sanctions (Docket No. 9) is, with respect to remand, ALLOWED but is, with respect to its request for sanctions, DENIED. Defendant Guaetta & Benson, LLCs motion to dismiss (Docket No. 16) is DENIED as moot.Plaintiffs motion to stay (Docket No. 20) is DENIED as moot.Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County.So ordered. (Caruso, Stephanie)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., M&T BANK )
)
CORPORATION, AND GUAETTA &
)
BENSON, LLC
)
)
Defendants.
)
DAVID STRUSKI AND CHRISTINE
STRUSKI,

Civil Action No.
17-12037-NMG

ORDER
GORTON, J.
On October 25, 2017, plaintiffs David and Christine Struski
(“plaintiffs”) filed an emergency motion for remand, a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) and sanctions (Docket No 9).

Because

the foreclosure sale scheduled to occur on October 30, 2017 was
postponed, the Court denied the emergency motion for a TRO as
moot on October 26, 2017.

In its response to plaintiffs’ motion

for remand (Docket No. 19), defendant Bank of America, N.A. (the
removing party), states that defendants do not oppose remand of
the case to the Massachusetts Superior Court.

-1-

In light of defendants’ assent, plaintiffs’ motion for
remand and sanctions (Docket No. 9) is, with respect to remand,
ALLOWED but is, with respect to its request for sanctions,
DENIED.
Defendant Guaetta & Benson, LLC’s motion to dismiss (Docket
No. 16) is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiffs’ motion to stay (Docket No. 20) is DENIED as
moot.
Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to the
Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County.

So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton______
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: November 16, 2017

-2-