From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cabalu

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Nov 22, 2010
No. C 10-2624 RS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)

Summary

explaining that although removal was objectively unreasonable, an award of fees was not appropriate because of litigant's pro se status; also noting representation by one defendant that he was not employed and thus unable to afford any judgment

Summary of this case from Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Perez

Opinion

No. C 10-2624 RS.

November 22, 2010


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On September 21, 2010, Magistrate Judge Laporte held a hearing on plaintiff Deutsche Bank's motion to remand this unlawful detainer suit to Alameda County Superior Court. Defendants did not oppose the motion, but defendant Cecil Cabalu did attend the hearing. In a report and recommendation filed on September 30, 2010, Judge Laporte granted plaintiff's motion to remand on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking but denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees. Cabalu did not oppose the report and recommendation. The Court has reviewed Judge Laporte's extensive and thorough report and recommendation and adopts it here in full. Accordingly, the clerk should close the case and direct appropriate materials to the Alameda County Superior Court.

While the plaintiff and defendant Cecil Cabalu consented to magistrate jurisdiction, two counter-defendants were served but failed to consent. Accordingly, the matter was reassigned to this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/22/2010


Summaries of

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cabalu

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Nov 22, 2010
No. C 10-2624 RS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)

explaining that although removal was objectively unreasonable, an award of fees was not appropriate because of litigant's pro se status; also noting representation by one defendant that he was not employed and thus unable to afford any judgment

Summary of this case from Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Perez

explaining that although removal was objectively unreasonable, an award of fees was not appropriate because of litigant's pro se status; also noting representation by one defendant that he was not employed and thus unable to afford any judgment

Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Bank v. Tan

noting that "an award of fees and costs would be appropriate because there was no objectively reasonable basis for removal of this purely state law case" but exercising discretion not to award fees given defendants' pro se status; also noting representation by one defendant that he was not employed and unable to afford any judgment

Summary of this case from Northern Neon Operations, LLC v. Damian

noting that "an award of fees and costs would be appropriate because there was no objectively reasonable basis for removal of this purely state law case" but exercising discretion not to award fees given defendants' pro se status; also noting representation by one defendant that he was not employed and unable to afford any judgment

Summary of this case from Quantum Servicing Corp. v. Castaneda
Case details for

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cabalu

Case Details

Full title:DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., Plaintiff, v. CECIL CABALU, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Nov 22, 2010

Citations

No. C 10-2624 RS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Tan

Where removal is objectively unreasonable, an award of attorney fees may nevertheless be inappropriate due to…

Quantum Servicing Corp. v. Castaneda

In fact, the Court concludes that, under the circumstances, fees are not appropriate, in particular, because…