From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Bank of America

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 18, 2011
Case No. 1:11-cv-00141-OWW-SMS, Fresno Superior Court, Case No. 10CECG04464 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-00141-OWW-SMS, Fresno Superior Court, Case No. 10CECG04464.

April 18, 2011

Charles Smith, Deborah M. Smith, Clovis, CA, Plaintiffs, In Pro Persona.


[ PROPOSED ] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFFS FEDERAL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP. ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE


Plaintiffs CHARLES SMITH and DEBORAH M. SMITH'S Motion to Remand the case to Fresno County Superior Court. Doc. 6 and Defendants Bank of America, N.A ("BOA") and Quality Loan Service Corp ("Quality") Opposition to Motion to Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. Doc 12 came on regularly for hearing on March 28, 2011 at or about 10:00 a.m in Department Court Room 3 of the above-entitled Court. Appearances by the parties are reflected in the Court's records.

On December 27, 2010, Plaintiffs, proceeding in pro per, filed a Complaint against Defendants BOA and Quality in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Doc. 1, Ex. A.

On January 25, 2011, Defendant BOA removed the case to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Doc. 1.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand on January 31, 2011. Doc 6. Defendant BOA opposes the motion. Doc 12. The motion was heard on March 28, 2011.

Here, there is federal question jurisdiction because the Complaint asserts causes of action under federal laws: TILA, RESPA, FDCPA, 18 U.S.C. § 241, and 18 U.S.C. § 2071. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.") There is supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state claims because they are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

At the hearing, Plaintiffs stated that they would dismiss all their federal claims against Defendants. If all the federal claims are dismissed, the court will no longer have federal or supplemental jurisdiction, and remand is proper.

For the reasons stated in the April 6, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND:

1. Plaintiffs' federal claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiffs are submitting this Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and Plaintiffs federal claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE consistent with this Courts MEMORANDUM DECISION within five (5) days following electronic service of the memorandum decision.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand is granted to Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 10CECG04464.


Summaries of

Smith v. Bank of America

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 18, 2011
Case No. 1:11-cv-00141-OWW-SMS, Fresno Superior Court, Case No. 10CECG04464 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011)
Case details for

Smith v. Bank of America

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES SMITH and DEBORAH M. SMITH Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A and…

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

Date published: Apr 18, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-00141-OWW-SMS, Fresno Superior Court, Case No. 10CECG04464 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011)