Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00184/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

LAURA AGUILERA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

HILLTOP LENDING CORP.; THANH 

NGUYEN; ROSENDO FLORES; IRES CO.; 

AURORA LOAN SERVICES; LLC; CALWESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORP., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 10-0184 SBA 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Laura Aguilera filed the instant mortgage fraud action against Defendants 

Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora”), Hilltop Lending Corporation, Thanh Nguyen, Rosendo 

Flores, Ires Company and Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation in Alameda County 

Superior Court on December 29, 2009. On January 14, 2010, Aurora removed the action to 

this Court, and the matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge James Larson. On January 20, 

2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which she noticed for hearing before Magistrate 

Judge Larson for March 18, 2010. Docket 4. On February 25, 2010, Aurora filed a motion to 

dismiss, which it noticed for hearing on April 7, 2010. Docket 8. 

On March 11, 2010, Magistrate Judge Larson sent the parties a letter instructing them to 

specify whether they were willing to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge or 

whether either of them desired to proceed before a district judge. Docket 10. On March 12, 

2010, Aurora filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. Docket 11. Plaintiff, 

however, did not respond to Magistrate Judge Larson’s letter. As such, on March 31, 2010, the 

matter was reassigned to this Court. Docket 14. The Court’s reassignment notice advised the 

parties that all previously pending dates have been vacated. On April 1, 2010, Aurora 

Case 3:10-cv-00184-JL Document 20 Filed 05/10/10 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 

renoticed its motion to dismiss on this Court’s calendar. Plaintiff did not renotice her motion to 

remand; however, she has not withdrawn such motion and it remains pending on the docket. 

At this juncture, it is unclear whether this case should proceed before this Court or 

before a magistrate judge. Although Aurora previously consented to having all further 

proceedings before a magistrate judge, Plaintiff has not confirmed her position on the matter. 

Indeed, the fact that Plaintiff previously noticed her motion for remand before Magistrate 

Judge Larson indicates her intent to consent to his jurisdiction. Therefore, to avoid any 

ambiguity in the record, the Court orders Plaintiff to file either a consent to proceed before a 

magistrate judge or a request for reassignment to a district judge, per Magistrate Judge 

Larson’s letter of March 11, 2010. 

In the event that Plaintiff consents to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the matter 

will be reassigned accordingly, and the parties may renotice their motions before the assigned 

magistrate judge. Should Plaintiff decline to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, 

the Court will set a briefing schedule and hearing date on her motion to remand, which must be 

resolved prior to the Court’s consideration of the motion to dismiss. See Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(recognizing that jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry before the adjudication of any case before 

the court). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT by no later than May 14, 2010, Plaintiff shall 

respond to Magistrate Judge Larson’s letter of March 11, 2010, and file either the consent form 

or request for reassignment. Should Plaintiff fail to comply with this Order, the Court may 

impose sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action. Plaintiff’s motion for remand 

and Aurora’s motion to dismiss shall be held in abeyance pending determination of whether the 

action will be reassigned to a magistrate judge or will remain with this Court. The hearing on 

Aurora’s motion to dismiss scheduled for May 18, 2010 is VACATED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 10, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:10-cv-00184-JL Document 20 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 2