F Wood Boyce v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al
Filing
30
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge George H. King:, ORDER by Judge George H. King remanding case to Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Barbara, Case number 1415910 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Letter cv 103) (shb)
<![CDATA[
E-Filed – JS-6
(link #16, 20)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-2707-GHK (AJWx)
Title
F. Wood Boyce v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Presiding: The Honorable
Date
August 21, 2013
GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Beatrice Herrera
N/A
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order Remanding Action
On August 5, 2013, we ordered Defendants to show cause why this matter should not be
remanded in light of our ruling in Olson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., __ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL
4407495 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defendants timely responded. They ask us to reconsider our ruling in
Olson. We decline to do so. As Defendants have failed to allege Wells Fargo’s principal place of
business, they have failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. Defendants also ask that we stay a decision
on this matter pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, No. 12-55278
(9th Cir. 2012). No decision in Rouse appears imminent, however; the court’s most recent action was an
August 1, 2013 notice requesting the parties to electronically submit their excerpts of record.
Accordingly, Defendants’ request that we stay decision is DENIED. As Defendants have failed to meet
their burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, we decline to rule on the pending motion to
dismiss and motion to expunge lis pendens. This action is hereby REMANDED to the state court from
which it was removed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
-Initials of Deputy Clerk
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
--
Bea
Page 1 of 1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
