Opinion
Case No. ED CV 11-1721 CAS (PJWx)
12-29-2011
LOUIS TAXNER v. JOHN G. STUMPF, ET AL.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦CATHERINE JEANG¦Not Present ¦N/A ¦ +---------------+-------------------------+--------¦ ¦Deputy Clerk ¦Court Reporter / Recorder¦Tape No.¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers:) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE (filed 11/4/2011)
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF MOOTNESS (Filed 12/19/11)
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 21, 2011, plaintiff Louis Taxner ("plaintiff") filed the instant action against John G. Stumpf, World Savings Bank FSB, Margaret Padilla, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, "defendants") in Riverside Superior Court. Defendants timely removed to this Court on October 28, 2011, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) and 1331, because plaintiff's eighth claim alleged violations of Tit. 16, § 433.2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. On November 4, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to defendants' motions. On December 19, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion styled as a "motion for finding of mootness" based on the fact that he had purportedly filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") in Riverside Superior Court on October 28, 2011.
Plaintiff contends that defendants' motions are moot in light of the FAC and requests that this Court remand the action. See Dkt. No. 14 at 1-2. However, because defendants removed to this Court prior to plaintiff filing the FAC, the state court no longer retains jurisdiction over the matter. See Sugimoto v. Exportadora de Sal, S.A. de C.V., 233 Cal. App. 3d 165, 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) ("Once a matter is removed to the federal court, a state trial court and its judge have no jurisdiction over the matter. . . ."). Plaintiff's attempt to file the FAC in state court was therefore procedurally improper.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to strike without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is directed to file his amended complaint in this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 : 00
Initials of Preparer CMJ