Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01395/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01395-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WELLS FARGO BANK NA DBA

AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAYDA SANCHEZ,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-01395 CRB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Now pending before the court is Plaintiff Wells Fargo’s Motion to Remand and For

Attorneys’ Fees. Pro se Defendant Mayda Sanchez opposes the motion. Pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. 

Because Defendant’s notice of removal was not timely filed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty

days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy

of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action

or proceeding is based, or within thirty days after the service of summons upon

the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not

required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

In this case, Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on October 6,

2009, a fact she does not dispute. Mtn. Ex. B; Opp. at 2. Accordingly, Defendant had until 

Case 3:10-cv-01395-CRB Document 16 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2010\1395\Order Re Mtn to Remand.wpd 2

November 6, 2009 to file a notice of removal. She did not do so until April 2, 2010, almost

five months beyond the cutoff date. The Court therefore finds that removal was untimely and

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees. Though Defendant missed

the relevant deadline by several months, Defendant “filed the notice of removal without the

benefit of legal counsel.” OneWest Bank, FSB v. Mohr, 2010 WL 2721437 (N.D. Cal. July

7, 2010). “[A] fee award is [therefore] not appropriate in this case.” Id. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01395-CRB Document 16 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2