Harry M Fox v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
Harry M Fox |
California Reconveyance Company, Doe Defendants, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and U.S. Bank National Association |
2:2016cv00193 |
January 11, 2016 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
John E. McDermott |
Dolly M. Gee |
Real Property: Foreclosure |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 22 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, including the Section 7434 federal claim 8 . Fox has stated that he "misunderstood" section 7434, and now believes it to be inapplicable. Fox requests leave to amend this claim to "reflect a claim for [n]egligence" instead. The Court will construe this request as one for voluntary dismissa l of the federal claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 41. The Court therefore dismisses with prejudice the claim for violation of section 7434 on the basis of Fox's request for voluntary dismissal, and declines to exercise its supplementa l jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Fox's motion to remand 12 is GRANTED and his request for costs and fees is DENIED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC602491. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.