Ramos
Ramos v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GLEN J. RAMOS, et al., Case No. 20-cv-01433-MMC
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
9 v. MOTION FOR REMAND; VACATING
HEARING
10 U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.,
11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand, filed May 22, 2020, by which 14 motion plaintiffs seek an order remanding the above-titled action to state court, based on 15 lack of diversity jurisdiction and the doctrine of abstention established in Burford v. Sun 16 Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) has 17 filed opposition; plaintiffs have not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers 18 filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate 19 for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing 20 scheduled for July 10, 2020, and rules as follows. 21 First, contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, Chase has met its burden of showing 22 diversity of…