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.

Rowe v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 28, 2016

ANTONIA REBECCA ROWE, Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER REMANDING REMOVED ACTION TO STATE COURT (DOC. 60)

          BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Antonia Rebecca Rowe (“Plaintiff”) moves to remand this action to Fresno County Superior Court. Doc. 60. No opposition was filed. Given the lack of opposition, no party was entitled to be heard in opposition at oral argument, and the Court vacated the hearing scheduled for July 29, 2016. Local Rule 230(c), (g). Having considered the moving papers and record, Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to Fresno County Superior Court shall be granted.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit for quiet title, declaratory relief, unjust enrichment and equitable indemnity against six named defendants, including the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), in connection with the purchase of property in Fresno, California.

         On October 2, 2015, Fannie Mae removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction.

         On February 26, 2016, Citicorp Trust Bank FSB (“Citibank”) moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss on April 22, 2016, and contemporaneously filed a motion to amend the Complaint to add Verdugo Trustee Service Corporation as a defendant to the indemnity claim.

         On May 6, 2016, Defendants Fannie Mae and JP Morgan Chase, N.A. (“Chase”) answered the complaint. Doc. 52.

         On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement, indicating that her claims against Chase and Fannie Mae had been resolved and settled.

         On June 2, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. Doc. 57.

         On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of Defendants Chase and Fannie Mae pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Doc. 59. Plaintiff also filed the instant motion for remand of the action to state court. Doc. 60.

         On June 22, 2016, the Court dismissed Defendants Chase and Fannie Mae from this action with prejudice. Doc. 61.

         On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint. Doc. 62. Citibank filed a motion to ...


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.