Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02130/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEYHAN MOHANNA,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02130-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING ON 

MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION 

TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 7

This order concerns the two motions currently pending in this case: plaintiff’s motion to 

remand and defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 4, 7. Both motions are set for hearing on 

July 16, 2015. Dkt. No. 19.

The parties have not filed reply briefs in support of their respective motions, perhaps 

because of some confusion resulting from the case being transferred from Magistrate Judge Corley 

to this Court on June 3, 2015 and the hearing on the motions then being reset to July 16, 2015.1 

Dkt. Nos. 16, 19. In addition, although defendant appears to have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s 

motion to remand on June 11, 2015, that opposition was not posted on the docket until today.

For these reasons, the deadline for either party to file a reply brief is extended to July 8, 

2015. In its reply in support of its motion to remand, plaintiff shall include a discussion of

whether the “forum defendant rule,” codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), applies to this case, and 

whether, in light of Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006), that rule 

 

1

That said, I note that the Order Reassigning Case plainly instructed the parties that “[b]riefing 

schedules . . . remain unchanged.” Dkt. No. 16; see also Civil Local Rule 7-7(d) (“Effect on Time 

for Filing Opposition or Reply. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the continuance of the 

hearing of a motion does not extend the time for filing and serving the opposing papers or reply 

papers.”).

Case 3:15-cv-02130-WHO Document 21 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

would provide a proper basis for remand here despite plaintiff’s failure to raise the rule in its 

moving papers. 

The hearing on the motion to remand and motion to dismiss remains set for July 16, 2015 

at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco, California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02130-WHO Document 21 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2