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.

United States Bank National Association v. Sadeghi

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 26, 2013

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR SRMOF REO 2001-1, Plaintiff,
v.
HOSSEIN M. SADEGHI, GOLNAR SADEGHI and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants.

ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Remand Case to State Court (ECF No. 3), and the Court's July 17, 2013 Order (ECF No. 4).

I. Background

On February 1, 2013, Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association, Not in Its Individual Capacity, but Solely as Trustee for SRMOF REO 2001-1, filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-1).

On July 2, 2013, Defendant Hossein M. Sadeghi ("Defendant"), proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal in this Court. (ECF No. 1). On July 2, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2).

On July 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand Case to State Court ("Motion to Remand"). (ECF No. 3).

On July 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 4). The Court stated:

Defendant shall, within twenty (20) days of the date this Order is filed, either (1) pay the requisite $400.00 filing fee, or (2) submit a more detailed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If Defendant fails to submit payment or a more detailed motion to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty days of the date of this Order, the Court will remand this case to the San Diego County Superior Court. The briefing schedule for the pending Motion to Remand Case to State Court is not affected by this Order.

Id. at 2 (citation omitted).

On July 31, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 7). On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 8). On August 13, 2013, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's reply. (ECF No. 10).

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff moves for remand of this action to state court on the basis that the Court lacks subject-matter ...


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.