Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01519-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF CAROL KLIGGE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FIDELITY MORTGAGE OF )

CALIFORNIA, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 05-1519 AWI DLB

ORDER VACATING

HEARING DATE OF

DECEMBER 17, 2007, AND

DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF

NOTICES OF OPPOSITION

OR NON-OPPOSITION

In this is an action for damages by the estate of Carol Kligge (“Plaintiff”), the court heard

oral arguments on Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution and related arguments

on September 12, 2007. The court denied Defendants motions to dismiss and awarded sanctions

against Plaintiff. The court also directed that a stipulation of remand be submitted to the court

not later than October 10, 2007. On October 30, 2007, Plaintiff noticed a motion to remand and

notified the court that one or more of the Defendant parties had declined to stipulate to the

remand. Plaintiff therefore intends to proceed by way of motion to accomplish the remand of

this case to the superior court. To date, a statement of non-opposition to the motion for remand

from individual defendant Rupp has been received. No other filings pertaining to Plaintiff’s

motion to remand has been received from any other Defendant party. The court has received

Defendant attorney’s statements of expenses in support of the award of sanctions and has

received Plaintiffs’ objections thereto.

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 171 Filed 12/13/07 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

The court wishes to avoid any possible confusion or misunderstanding in the disposition

of this case. Therefore, the court requests notice from each of the remaining Defendant parties

as to their opposition or non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The court has reviewed

the documents that have been filed with the court to this point and has determined that Plaintiff’s

motion to remand will be suitable for decision without oral argument subject to review of the

parties’ notices of opposition or non-opposition. Should the court later determine upon review of

all submitted documents that oral argument is appropriate, the parties will be notified and the

matter will be scheduled for oral argument. Local Rule 78-230(h).

THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The previously set hearing date of December 17, 2007, is VACATED, and no party shall

appear at that time. 

2. The Defendant parties shall file statements of opposition or non-opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion to remand within ten (10) days of the date of filing of this order. If no response is

received within the ten-day period, the court will assume non-opposition by the nonresponding party. Defendant Charlotte Rupp need not respond to this order, as her

statement of non-opposition has been received.

3. As of Friday, December 28, 2007, the court will take the matter under submission and

will thereafter render its decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01519-AWI-DLB Document 171 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2