UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 3, 2011
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA, THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS SUCCESSOR TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, M.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR HOLDERS OF SAMI II TRUST 2006-AR7, PLAINTIFFS,
ROSA ORTEGA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT [Motion filed on January 7, 2011]
Presently before the court is Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court. Because the Defendant has not filed an opposition, the Court GRANTS the motion.
This is a residential unlawful detainer action commenced after a non-judicial foreclosure sale. On or about August 24, 2006, a Deed of Trust regarding the real property located at 1740 Junipero Ave., Long Beach, California 90804 was executed by Defendant, Rosa Ortega. On or about May 24, 2010, the trustee or successor trustee conducted a trustee's sale of the property. Following the non-judicial foreclosure sale, Plaintiff acquired title of the property. On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Los Angeles County Superior Court entered judgment for possession in favor of the Plaintiff on September 10, 2010.
On December 10, 2010, Defendants filed a notice of removal to remove the action from Los Angeles County Superior Court to the Unites States District Court for the Central District of California. On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed this motion to remand, which was scheduled for a hearing on February 28, 2011.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, a party opposing a motion is required to file an opposition by no later than twenty-one days before the hearing. C.D. Cal. Local R. 7-9. Failure to file an opposition within the deadline may be deemed consent to granting the motion. C.D. Cal. Local R. 7-12. Therefore Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion was due by February 7, 2011. As of the date of this Order, Defendants have not filed any response to Plaintiff's motion. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the court to grant the motion based solely on Defendants' failure to oppose it.
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand and REMANDS this case to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.