Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paul Corrado v. Residential Funding Corp. et al

March 3, 2011

PAUL CORRADO
v.
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP. ET AL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline H. Nguyen

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN

Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present Not present

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (In Chambers)

I. Introduction

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ("Motion")(docket no. 22), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), filed on February 4, 2011. Defendant filed an Opposition on February 18, 2011 (docket no. 28). The Court has considered the briefs filed in this matter and deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for March 14, 2011 is removed from the Court's calendar. For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

II. Background

Plaintiff originally filed this action against Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging multiple federal and state causes of action related to the foreclosure on Plaintiff's residence. On November 16, 2010, Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Defendant's Notice of Removal, Docket no. 1.) On December 3, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. (Docket no. 6.) Due to Plaintiff's failure to file any opposition, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Docket no. 11.) On January 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which alleged only state causes of action against the Defendants. (Docket no. 12.) Plaintiff now moves to remand the case to Superior Court.

III. Legal Standard

The Court may remand a case to state court "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. ยง 1447(c). "[W]hen removal . . . is based on federal-question jurisdiction and all federal claims are eliminated from the lawsuit, '[i]t is generally within a district court's discretion either to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the pendent state claims or to remand them to state court.'" Gilmore v. Bank of N.Y., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59325, at *7 (S.D. Cal. July 9, 2009) (quoting Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991)). The Court's discretion enables the consideration of "the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.