Toromanova v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 63

ORDER Denying 52 Plaintiff's Objection to the Court's orders. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 09/27/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

DIMITRITZA TOROMANOVA

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al.,

13

Defendants.

2:12-cv-1637-LRH-CWH
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is plaintiff Dimitritza Toromanova’s (“Toromanova”) objections to the

16

court’s orders which the court shall construe as a motion for reconsideration. Doc. #52.1

17

I.

Facts and Background

18

Plaintiff Toromanova filed a complaint in state court against defendants for wrongful

19

foreclosure. See Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of

20

diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Thereafter, Toromanova filed the present motion for

21

reconsideration. Doc. #52.

22

II.

23

Discussion
In her motion, Toromanova contends that this court is without jurisdiction to hear this

24

action, and therefore, all of the court’s orders were in error. The court disagrees. As addressed at

25

length in the court’s order denying Toromanova’s motion to remand, the exercise of diversity

26
1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

jurisdiction is appropriate because there is complete diversity between the parties. See Doc. #34.

2

Thus, it was not error for the court to exercise jurisdiction in this action and enter its prior orders.

3

Accordingly, the court shall deny her objections.

4
5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s objection to the court’s orders (Doc. #52) is
DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED this 27th day of September, 2013.

9
10

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2