Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennly R. Becker
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DENNLY R. BECKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Inc., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Dennly Becker moves for a temporary restraining order enjoining a 

foreclosure sale of real property in Manteca, California. ECF No. 102. A sale is currently set for 

August 29, 2016. See Req. J. Notice Ex. 8, at 1, ECF No. 102-1.1

 

The court entered judgment in this case in 2013 after adopting the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations. See Order, Aug. 16, 2013, ECF No. 89; Judgment, ECF 

No. 90. Mr. Becker’s federal-law claims were dismissed, and the court found that he and the only 

defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., were not diverse. See id. (adopting Findings & 

 1

 The court grants the request for judicial notice of this document, a publicly recorded 

notice of trustee’s sale. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Grant v. Aurora Loan Servs., Inc., 736 F. Supp. 2d 

1257, 1263–64 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting authority on judicial notice of publicly recorded 

documents). 

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 106 Filed 08/17/16 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

Recommendations, ECF No. 82). The court did not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 

state claims. Id. Mr. Becker appealed, and his appeal is pending. See Not. of Appeal, ECF No. 92; 

Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 13-16772 (9th Cir. filed Aug. 29, 2013). 

“The filing of a notice of appeal . . . divests the district court of its control over 

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 

459 U.S. 56 (1982). The question of this court’s diversity and supplemental jurisdiction is before 

the Court of Appeals. This is true regardless of shifting precedent. Cf. Mot. TRO 1 (citing Rouse 

v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 747 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2014)). The motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: August 16, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 106 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2