Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00834/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00834-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK R. PETERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0834 JAM AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this removed action pro se. This proceeding was accordingly 

referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiff seeks to enjoin 

the foreclosure of his primary residence. 

 Pending before the undersigned are (1) plaintiff’s motion to remand the action for lack of 

jurisdiction, and (2) defendant’s motion to dismiss. The parties were heard at oral argument on 

these motions on August 31, 2016. Plaintiff represented himself. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., was 

represented by Melissa C. Shaw, Esq. 

 Defendant has now filed a Notice of Errata, acknowledging that the original Notice of 

Removal omitted a critical portion of plaintiff’s original state court complaint. ECF No. 24. The 

corrected version of the original complaint – now containing, among other things, the “Prayers” 

for “cancellation of the Note and Deed of Trust,” and for “Restoration of escrow fees, costs and 

assessments that exceed the prayer, above in an amount of $150,000 or as proved at the time of 

Case 2:16-cv-00834-JAM-AC Document 25 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

trial” – is now attached to the Notice of Errata. See ECF No. 24, Exh. A. Defendant argues that 

these Prayers, among other things, establish that the amount in controversy here exceeds the 

$75,000 jurisdictional minimum. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall have 21 days to respond to 

the Notice of Errata, and to make any arguments he deems appropriate in support of his 

previously filed motion to remand. 

DATED: September 1, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00834-JAM-AC Document 25 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 2