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.

Williams v. Bank of America

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

April 24, 2015

BROCK WILLIAMS and SYLVIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND, AND TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Brock Williams and Sylvia Williams ("Plaintiffs") have brought suit to quiet title against defendants Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA"), and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Resident Accredit Loans Inc. Series 2006 QS2 ("U.S. Bank") (collectively, "Defendants"). Before the Court are BANA's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16). The Court finds Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and hereby VACATES the hearing on that motion set for July 16, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. The hearing on BANA's Motion to Dismiss and the initial case management conference, also scheduled for July 16, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., remain as set. Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, and ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On or about December 15, 2005, Plaintiffs purchased the real property located at 940 College Drive, San Jose, California 95128 (the "Property"), via a grant deed recorded against the Property on January 4, 2006, as instrument number 18754844. ECF No. 1-1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 1-2, Ex. A. The purchase was financed by a first deed of trust (the "First Deed of Trust") and a second deed of trust recorded in favor of American Mortgage Express Corp. ECF No. 9-1, Exs. 1-2. The second deed of trust was reconveyed on November 21, 2006. Id. Ex. 3.

On November 6, 2006, Plaintiffs refinanced the Property, obtaining a home equity line of credit from BANA in the amount of $200, 000 (the "Loan"). Compl. ¶ 3, Ex. B. The Loan was secured by a deed of trust (the "Loan Deed of Trust") recorded against the Property in the Official Records of the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office on September 16, 2008, as instrument number 19989695. Id. On December 2, 2011, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. assigned the beneficial interest under the First Deed of Trust to U.S. Bank, as evidenced by an Assignment of Deed of Trust (the "Assignment") recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County on December 12, 2011, as instrument number 21454357. Id. ¶ 4, Ex. C.

Non-judicial foreclosure proceedings commenced on December 28, 2011, when U.S. Bank issued a Notice of Default and Election to Sell and recorded it in the Official Records of Santa Clara County on December 30, 2011, as instrument number 21481333. ECF No. 9-1, Ex. 4. This Notice of Default was rescinded on November 24, 2014. Id. Ex. 5.

On November 13, 2014, a subsequent Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust (the "NOD") was recorded by U.S. Bank in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, as instrument number 22767063. ECF No. 9-1, Ex. 6. The NOD lists the amount due under the First Deed of Trust as $151, 852.86 as of September 22, 2014. Id.

B. Procedural History

On January 14, 2015, Plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel, filed an action against Defendants to quiet title in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Plaintiffs are seeking to clear title from two documents Plaintiffs allege were wrongfully recorded: the Loan Deed of Trust and the Assignment. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11. Plaintiffs allege further that the Loan Deed of Trust and the Assignment are forgeries. Id. ¶ 10. On January 21, 2015, Plaintiffs served BANA with copies of the Summons and Complaint. ECF No. 1 at 1.[1]

On February 20, 2015, BANA removed the instant lawsuit to federal court. ECF No. 1. The sole basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction asserted in BANA's Notice of Removal was diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. at 2-4.

On February 27, 2015, BANA filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 8. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was due on March 13, 2015. On March 19, 2015, BANA filed a Reply indicating that "BANA has not received any opposition to the Motion to Dismiss." ECF No. 15 at 1. As of today, April 24, 2015, Plaintiffs have not filed an Opposition or Statement of Nonopposition to BANA's Motion to Dismiss.

However, on March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs, still represented by counsel, filed a Motion to Remand the instant lawsuit to state court. ECF No. 16 ("Mot."). BANA opposed the motion on April 3, 2015. ECF No. 18. The deadline for ...


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.