From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Umholtz v. Bank of America, N.A.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Feb 9, 2015
2:14-cv-09211-CAS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015)

Opinion

          Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Not Present.

          Attorneys for Defendants: Not Present.


         

          Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, J.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         Proceedings: (In Chambers) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (Dkt. No. 20, filed January 21, 2015)

         The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of February 23, 2015, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.

         On October 27, 2014, plaintiff Christine Umholtz filed the instant action in Ventura County Superior Court against defendants Bank of America, N.A. (" Bank of America"), Nationstar Mortgage LLC (" Nationstar"), ReconTrust Company, N.A. (" ReconTrust"), and Does 1 through 20. On December 1, 2014, Bank of America and ReconTrust removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1.

         On January 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding the Wolf Firm, a Law Corporation, as an additional defendant. Dkt. No. 19. That same day, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action to the Superior Court. Dkt. No. 20. On February 5, 2015, Bank of America and ReconTrust filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to remand. Dkt. No. 24. That notice " represent[s] . . . that in light of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Defendants will not, and do not, oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Remand." Id. at 1-2.

In her motion to remand, plaintiff explains that her original complaint mistakenly alleged that ReconTrust recorded a notice of default that was actually recorded by the Wolf Firm. Dkt. No. 20 at 5. Plaintiff represents that she intends to dismiss ReconTrust from the action.

Although plaintiff's motion asserts that she filed the case in the " California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles" and noticed her motion as one for remand to that court, the complaint was filed in Ventura County Superior Court, and thus the action will be remanded there.

         Because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to remand. This action is hereby REMANDED to Ventura County Superior Court.

         IT IS SO ORDERED


Summaries of

Umholtz v. Bank of America, N.A.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Feb 9, 2015
2:14-cv-09211-CAS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Umholtz v. Bank of America, N.A.

Case Details

Full title:UMHOLTZ v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL

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

Date published: Feb 9, 2015

Citations

2:14-cv-09211-CAS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015)