Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

The Bank of New York Mellon Fka the Bank of New York As Trustee For v. Yair Dar and Does I Through X

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 13, 2011

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007 OA2 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-0A2, PLAINTIFF,
v.
YAIR DAR AND DOES I THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE. DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

O

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT

[Motion filed on May 11, 2011]

Presently before this court is Plaintiff's Motion for Order Remanding Case to State Court. Because Defendant has not filed an opposition, the court GRANTS the motion.

This is an action that arises from a summons and complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 8, 2011, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - West District, Beverly Hills Courthouse. Plaintiff's complaint is based on an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff seeks the possession of residential property located at 1150 San Ysidro Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.

On May 11, 2011, Plaintiff moved to remand this matter to Los Angeles Superior Court. A hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Order Remanding the Case to State Court was set for June 13, 2011.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, a party opposing a motion is required to file an opposition 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 on May 23, 2011. As of the date of this Order, Defendant has not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed as an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the Case to State Court. Accordingly, the court regards Defendant's failure to oppose to be consent to granting Plaintiff's motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the Case to State Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110613

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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