Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Wushuwuunoag et al
| Wells Fargo Bank, NA |
| Neefu Wushuwuunoag, Quenikun Paw Pawkunawaw, Meetush Tunipas and Neesu Wushuwuunoag |
| 1:2024cv00049 |
| February 2, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Rhode Island |
| Lincoln D Almond |
| William E Smith |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiff's #9 Motion to Remand because Defendants' #1 Notice of Removal is untimely. Defendants filed the Notice of Removal nearly three and a half years after Plaintiff served notice of this action on Defendants, which falls well outside the permissible removal period. Notice of Removal ¶ 1-2; see 28 U.S.C. 1446 (requiring parties to file notices of removal within thirty days of service of the initial pleading or, in certain cases involving diversity jurisdiction, within one year of commencement of the action). Nonetheless, Defendants contend that Plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal by not naming an interested party and by failing to disclose the amount in controversy. Notice of Removal ¶ 8. In diversity cases, a party may remove a case after the removal period if "the district court finds that the plaintiff acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action." 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(1). The removing party must demonstrate that the non-removing party "engag[ed] in intentional conduct--action or inaction--to defeat removal." In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 1:15-MD-2657-FDS, 2019 WL 2491587, at *4 (D. Mass. June 13, 2019). Such conduct generally involves "strategic gamesmanship to prevent [the] defendant's removal from state court." Ehrenreich v. Black, 994 F. Supp. 2d 284, 288 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). There is no evidence Plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal, as its conduct was merely that of a party attempting to evict occupants from a recently purchased property. See Mansilla-Gomez v. Mid-S. Erectors, Inc., No. 0:14-CV-00308-JFA, 2014 WL 1347485, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 3, 2014) (refusing to apply the bad faith exception because the conduct at issue was motivated by purposes other than to prevent removal). First, Plaintiff initiated an eviction action in the Rhode Island District Court because that court possesses jurisdiction over such cases. See R.I. Gen. Laws 8-8-3(a)(2). Second, Plaintiff did not include the purportedly interested party because it was not an occupant of the property at issue. See Mem. Supp. Pl.'s Mot. Remand 7, ECF No. 9-1. Lastly, Plaintiff did not provide an amount in controversy because Plaintiff was not seeking to recover damages in the eviction action. Id. 8-9. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 2/26/2024. (Simoncelli, Michael)
|
| Filing 10 RESPONSE In Opposition to #9 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Neesu Wushuwuunoag. Replies due by 2/28/2024. (Hill, Cherelle) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Wells Fargo Bank, NA. Responses due 2/23/2024(Attachments: #1 Supporting Memorandum, #2 Appendix to Memo)(Hagopian, Michael) Modified on 2/13/2024 to reflect that per the text order dated 2/12/2024, the response date is 10 days after the motion is filed (Urizandi, Nissheneyra). |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Revoke Request re: #5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Neesu Wushuwuunoag. Responses due by 2/26/2024. (Gonzalez Gomez, Viviana) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE In Opposition to #5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Wells Fargo Bank, NA. Replies due by 2/20/2024. (Hagopian, Michael) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael R. Hagopian on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA (Hagopian, Michael) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Quenikun Paw Pawkunawaw, Meetush Tunipas, Neesu Wushuwuunoag. (Gonzalez Gomez, Viviana) |
|
TEXT ORDER granting Defendants' #8 Motion to Revoke Request for Temporary Restraining Order and denying as moot Defendants' #5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case due to improper removal. Pl.'s Obj. Mot. TRO 1, ECF No. 7. Defendants are ORDERED to respond to the jurisdiction argument within ten days of Plaintiff's filing of a motion to remand. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 2/12/2024. (Simoncelli, Michael)
|
| Filing 4 STATE COURT RECORD Volume 2 received electronically from the State of Rhode Island. (Attachments: #1 Part 8, #2 Part 9, #3 Part 10, #4 Part 11, #5 Part 12)(DaCruz, Kayla) |
| Filing 3 STATE COURT RECORD received electronically from the State of Rhode Island. (Attachments: #1 Part 2, #2 Part 3, #3 Part 4, #4 Part 5)(Hill, Cherelle) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/2/2024: #5 Part 6, #8 Part 7) (Hill, Cherelle). Modified on 2/5/2024 to correct docket text (DaCruz, Kayla). |
| Filing 2 CASE OPENING NOTICE ISSUED (Gonzalez Gomez, Viviana) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 6th Division District Court, case number 6CA-2019-07929. (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number 100001049), filed by Neefu Wushuwuunoag, Meetush Tunipas, Quenikun Paw Pawkunawaw. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Civil Cover Sheet) (Gonzalez Gomez, Viviana) |
| Case assigned to District Judge William E. Smith and Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond. (Gonzalez Gomez, Viviana) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Rhode Island 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.
