Opinion
2:12-cv-1637-LRH-CWH
2013-09-27
DIMITRITZA TOROMANOVA Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Before the court is plaintiff Dimitritza Toromanova's ("Toromanova") objections to the court's orders which the court shall construe as a motion for reconsideration. Doc. #52.
Refers to the court's docket entry number.
I. Facts and Background
Plaintiff Toromanova filed a complaint in state court against defendants for wrongful foreclosure. See Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis o diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Thereafter, Toromanova filed the present motion for reconsideration. Doc. #52.
II. Discussion
In her motion, Toromanova contends that this court is 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 Toromanova's motion to remand, the exercise of diversity jurisdiction is appropriate because there is complete diversity between the parties. See Doc. #34. Thus, it was not error for the court to exercise jurisdiction in this action and enter its prior orders. Accordingly, the court shall deny her objections.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's objection to the court's orders (Doc. #52) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE