Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Le et al
| Aurora Loan Services LLC |
| Thanh Van Le and Dung Ngoc Nguyen |
| 2:2011cv00087 |
| January 10, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Lawrence K. Karlton |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 |
| None |
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
16
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/12/11 ORDERING that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 23, 2011, are ADOPTED; Plaintiffs motion to remand 8 is granted; This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of California, Co unty of Sacramento, on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims; and The Clerk of Court shall vacate all dates and close this case. REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/20/11, ORDERING that the status conference currently set for 6/9/11 is VACATED. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to remand 8 be granted, and thi s matter be remanded to the Superior Court of CA, County of Sacramento, on the grounds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. The Clerk vacate all dates in this case. Case referred to Judge Karlton. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all parties within 14 days after service of the objections. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/05/11 ORDERING that plf's 6 Motion to Remand is DENIED w/o prejudice to refiling; the 04/01/11 hearing is VACATED. Any future motion for remand and/or dismissal of this action should include a points and authorities advancing arguments in favor of the remedies sought, and should include a discussion of the relevant legal authorities. Supporting evidence should be filed concurrently with such a motion. (Benson, A.)
|
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 Eastern 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.
