Hanh Nguyen v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A.

Full title: HANH NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.; et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Dec 19, 2013

2:11-cv-1799-LRH-NJK (D. Nev. Dec. 19, 2013)

Opinion

2:11-cv-1799-LRH-NJK

12-19-2013

HANH NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants.

LARRY R. HICKS

ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Hanh Nguyen's ("Nguyen") objection to the court's order denying his motion to reconsider (Doc. #61¹). Doc. #62. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. Doc. #63.

1 Refers to the court's docket entry number.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In September 2007, Nguyen purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust. Eventually, Nguyen defaulted on the mortgage note and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

Nguyen filed a complaint against defendants in state court. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. #43) which was granted by the court (Doc. #51). In response, Nguyen filed a motion to reconsider (Doc. #55) which was denied by the court (Doc. #61). Thereafter, Nguyen filed the present objection. Doc. #62.

II. Discussion

In its order denying the motion for reconsideration, the court stated the following:

In her motion, Nguyen contends that this court was without jurisdiction to hear this action, and therefore, all of the court's orders were in error. The court disagrees. As addressed at length in the court's order denying her motion to remand (Doc. #7), the exercise of diversity jurisdiction is appropriate in this matter because there is complete diversity between the parties. See Doc. #15. Thus, it was not error for the court to exercise jurisdiction in this action and enter its prior orders.

Doc. #61. Nguyen objects to the court's ruling on the basis that her motion did not challenge the court's jurisdiction. See Doc. #62 ("The court has confused me with someone else. My motion said no such thing."). However, Nguyen's motion did, in fact, suggest and argue that the court improperly exercised its jurisdiction by failing to grant her motion to remand. See Doc. #55, p.5-6. Thus, the court properly construed and rejected Nguyen's jurisdictional argument. Therefore, the court finds that it did not err in its prior order and shall deny Nguyen's objections.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's objection to the court's order (Doc. #62) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE