Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01081-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marquita Cordova
Defendant
Fannie Mae
Plaintiff
Federal National Mortgage
Plaintiff
Robert Griffis
Defendant

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FANNIE MAE a/k/a FEDERAL NATIONAL

MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARQUITA CORDOVA, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-1081 EMC

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

(Docket Nos. 4, 6)

On March 9, 2015, Defendants Marquita Cordova and Robert Griffis removed the instant

action from state to federal court. See Docket No. 1 (notice of removal). Currently pending before

the Court is Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the lawsuit be

remanded back to Contra Costa Superior Court. See Docket No. 4 (report and recommendation or

“R&R”). The R&R was served on Defendants by mail on March 12, 2015. See Docket No. 4-1

(certificate of service). The Court has not since received any objection to the R&R from

Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (providing that, “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a

copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (providing that, “[w]hen a party may

or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E),

or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)”).

Case 3:15-cv-01081-EMC Document 10 Filed 04/13/15 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

2

The Court has reviewed Judge Beeler’s R&R; finds it correct, well reasoned, and thorough;

and therefore adopts it in every respect. Moreover, the Court also notes that Defendants’ removal

was not timely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (providing that “[t]he notice of removal . . . shall be

filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a cop of the initial pleading”).

Because the Court is adopting the R&R, Plaintiff Fannie Mae’s motion to remand is now

moot. The Court acknowledges that Fannie Mae’s motion included a request for an award of fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which provides: “An order remanding the case may require

payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the

removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). But Fannie Mae need not have incurred any fees in preparing the

motion to remand because of Judge Beeler’s R&R. Accordingly, to the extent Fannie Mae’s motion

is not moot because of its request for fees, the request for fees is hereby denied.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 4 and 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01081-EMC Document 10 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 2