(PS) Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Le et al, No. 2:2011cv00087 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/12/11 ORDERING that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 23, 2011, are ADOPTED; Plaintiffs motion to remand 8 is granted; This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of California, Co unty of Sacramento, on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims; and The Clerk of Court shall vacate all dates and close this case. REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
(PS) Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Le et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC., 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 13 No. CIV-S-11-0087-LKK-KJN-PS THANH VAN LE, et al., 14 15 Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER On May 23, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 16 17 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 18 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 19 20 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 21 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 22 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 23 24 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 23, 2011, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 8) is granted; 4 3. This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, 5 6 7 on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims; and 4. The Clerk of Court shall vacate all dates and close this case. DATED: December 12, 2011. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2