Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00972/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00972-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AOM Group LLC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Fidelity Mortgage Financial, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-972-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs brought the pending action against Defendants Fidelity Mortgage Financial,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), Christopher R. Perry, Ocwen

Loan Servicing, LLC, Michael A. Bosco Jr., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. in Maricopa

County Superior Court. On May 4, 2010, Defendants MERS, Ocwen, and HSBC Bank

removed this case to federal court on the ground that this Court has diversity jurisdiction and

federal question jurisdiction over the case. Dkt. #2. 

Plaintiffs, on May 7, 2010, filed a motion for remand and a request for attorneys’ fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiffs contend that MERS, Ocwen, and HSBC Bank’s

notice of removal was filed more than 30 days after those Defendants were served with the

initial pleading in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Dkt. #6. In support of their motion for

remand, Plaintiffs attached a copy of the return of service to Ocwen which is dated March

23, 2010, see Dkt. #6-1 at 2, a copy of the return of service to MERS which is dated March

24, 2010, see Dkt. #6-1 at 4, and a copy of the return of service to HSBC Bank which is

dated March 23, 2010, see Dkt. #6-1 at 9. Plaintiffs further argue that each of these

Case 2:10-cv-00972-DGC Document 13 Filed 06/22/10 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 -

Defendants signed for the certified mail no later than March 29, 2010, and that based on

these dates, MERS, Ocwen, and HSBC Bank could not file their notice of removal after April

28, 2010. Plaintiffs contend that, because Defendants waited until May 4, 2010 to remove

the case, their notice of removal was untimely. Dkt. #6. Plaintiffs further argue that the

notice of removal is contrary to law, as their complaint does not state a federal question. 

 MERS, Ocwen, and HSBC Bank have failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to

remand or to Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees as required by Local Rule 7.2(c), which

states that the opposing party shall “have fourteen (14) days” to “file a responsive

memorandum” to any motion. Under Local Rule 7.2(i), if a responsive memorandum is not

timely filed, “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the

motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”

The Court will deem MERS, Ocwen, and HSBC Bank’s failure to respond as consent

to the granting of Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i). The Court will remand

this case to state court. The Court will further grant Plaintiffs’ request for reasonable

attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of MERS, Ocwen, and HSBC Bank’s removal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiffs shall have until July 16, 2010 to file memorandum in

support of their request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Local Rule 54.2. MERS, Ocwen, and

HSBC Bank shall have until July 30, 2010 to file a response to the memorandum.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. #6) is granted.

2. The Clerk of Court shall remand this action.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00972-DGC Document 13 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2