Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05846/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05846-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY f/k/a 

SATISH SHETTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, and others,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-05846 NC

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT TO A

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WITH 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

DISMISSAL 

This order seeks to remove this mortgage loan case from the jurisdictional 

purgatory in which it has rested since the Court dismissed the First and Second Amended 

Complaints and entered judgment for the defendants on August 7, 2017. ECF 65, 66.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded because one of the defendants, 

“America’s Wholesale Lender,” had not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge 

in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (requiring consent of all parties, including parties not served, for jurisdiction by 

consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)). ECF 16-1. On remand, this Court sought direction 

from plaintiff Shetty as to whether he wished to pursue his claims against “America’s 

Wholesale Lender.” Shetty’s most recent case management conference update and 

response to an order to show cause explain why it is impossible for “America’s Wholesale 

Case 5:16-cv-05846-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-05846 NC 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

Lender” to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction: “America’s Wholesale Lender” is not 

a real corporate entity; rather it is a “nonexistent entity.” ECF 83, ¶ 11. 

Because “America’s Wholesale Lender” does not exist, there is no way that it can 

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Consequently, the Clerk of Court is ordered to 

reassign this case to a District Court Judge. 

Next, I recommend that the newly assigned judge DISMISS the claims against 

“America’s Wholesale Lender” without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m). Rule 4(m) directs that the Court “must dismiss the action without prejudice” if a 

defendant is not served within 90 days (or a longer period if extended by the Court) of 

filing the complaint. Here, Shetty has been warned of the need to serve “America’s 

Wholesale Lender.” ECF 78, 81. His most recent case management statement confirms 

that he has not served “America’s Wholesale Lender.” ECF 85. Therefore, I recommend 

dismissal of “America’s Wholesale Lender” without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

Finally, I recommend that the newly assigned judge DISMISS the claims against 

the remaining defendants with prejudice for the reasons stated in my August 7, 2017, order 

dismissing the First and Second Amended Complaints. ECF 65. The Ninth Circuit did not 

reach the merits of the dismissal order, as it remanded on a jurisdictional basis. ECF 71.

I note for the newly assigned judge that Shetty asserts in his most recent case 

management statement that he “deserves the opportunity to amend” his complaint. ECF 85 

¶ 6. Shetty is not entitled to amend “as a matter of course” under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(a)(1). Defendants have not consented to amendment under Rule 15(a)(2). 

And Shetty has neither filed a motion for leave to amend, nor articulated how an 

amendment would cure the deficiencies identified in the August 7, 2017, order dismissing 

the case. That order determined that further leave to amend would be futile. ECF 65.

In conclusion: (1) the Clerk of Court is ordered to reassign this case to a District 

Court Judge; (2) with recommendation to dismiss without prejudice nonentity “America’s 

Wholesale Lender” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); and (3) recommendation to dismiss the 

remaining claims in the First and Second Amended Complaints for the reasons stated in 

Case 5:16-cv-05846-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/21/18 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-05846 NC 3

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

my August 7, 2017, order at ECF 65. Any party may object to this dispositive order under 

the procedures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Civil Local Rule 7, but must file and serve 

specific written objections within 14 days after being served with this order.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2018 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05846-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/21/18 Page 3 of 3