James Ortiz et al v. Citibank, N.A et al
| James Ortiz and Yolanda Y. Ortiz |
| Citibank, N.A, Citibank, N.A., Does, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Power Default Services, Inc. |
| 2:2017cv07886 |
| October 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Virginia A. Phillips |
| Michael R. Wilner |
| Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
22
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REMANDING CASE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: On November 14, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") to Los Angeles Superior Court on the grounds that Defenda nts had removed the case on the basis of a non-operative complaint. (Doc. No. 17.) The Court, however, retained jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees and provided both parties the opportunity to brief the issue. (See id.) On January 10, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees. (Doc. No. 21.) Accordingly, the Court now REMANDS the case in its entirety to Los Angeles Superior Court. Made JS-6 (bm) .
|
|
Filing
17
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND THE FAC (DOC. NO. 11), DECLINING TO RULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 8), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DEN YING REQUEST FOR SHORTENING TIME (DOC. NO. 15), VACATING THE DECEMBER 11, 2017 HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS, AND DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: As Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendants removed their case on the basis of a non-operative complaint, the Court REMANDS the FAC to Los Angeles County Superior Court. See Taylor v. CoxCom, Inc., No. CV 12-10149-CJC (JPRx), 2013 WL 327728, at *2 n.4 (C.D. Cal. January 29, 2013) (removal based on a non-operative complaint alone can serve as the basis for granting remand). Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8), denies as moot Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Appli cation for Reconsideration (Doc. No 15) and vacates the December 11, 2017 hearings on these Motions. Finally, the Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees. Defendants may file an opposition relating to both the ent itlement to and amount of Plaintiffs' request by 4:00 p.m. on November 22, 2017, and Plaintiffs may file a reply by 4:00 p.m. on November 29, 2017. The Court will decide Plaintiffs' attorney's fees request on the basis of the papers timely filed. Once the Court decides Plaintiff's attorney's fees, the Court will remand the case in its entirety to Los Angeles County Superior Court. (see document for further details) (bm)
|
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.
