From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kindsvater v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 6, 2015
2:15-cv-01982-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)

Opinion

          THOMAS A. WOODS, BRYAN L. HAWKINS, STOEL RIVES LLP, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendants SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, and U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I LLC, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-HE7.

          BRIAN KINDSVATER, Pro per.


STIPULATED REMAND (SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-2015-00183326)

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         Plaintiff, on his own behalf, and Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), National Default Servicing Corporation ("NDSC"), and U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, N.A. as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank N.A., as Trustee for Certificateholders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-HE7 (the "Trust") (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby recite and stipulate, subject to the Court's approval as provided for herein, as follows:

         RECITALS

         1. On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter styled as Brian Kindsvater v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., National Default Servicing Corporation, U.S. Bank, NA, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2015-00183326. Defendant SPS was served with the Complaint on August 20, 2015.

         2. On September 18, 2015, Defendants removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.

         3. On September 25, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion To Dismiss.

         4. That same day, Plaintiff emailed Defendants' counsel and informed them that removal was improper because prior to Defendants' filing of their Notice of Removal on September 18, 2015, Plaintiff had filed an Amended Complaint naming additional defendants whom are residents of the State of California.

         5. At the time Defendants' counsel filed the Notice of Removal, they were unaware of the filing of an Amended Complaint.

         STIPULATIONS

         Based on the foregoing, the Parties stipulate to remand of this action back to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         Upon reading the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, therefore, IT IS SO ORDERED that this action is remanded back to the Sacramento County Superior Court.


Summaries of

Kindsvater v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 6, 2015
2:15-cv-01982-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Kindsvater v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN KINDSVATER, Plaintiff, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., NATIONAL…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 6, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-01982-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)