Matzner

Matzner v. Citibank, N.A.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20233:23-cv-01015California1,805 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDRES MATZNER, Case No.: 23-CV-1015 TWR (KSC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING

v. ACTION TO THE SUPERIOR

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY

CITIBANK, N.A., and DOES 1 to

OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL

INCLUSIVE,

DIVISION Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 1) 17 On June 5, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) to show cause within fourteen days why this action should not be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 4, “OSC.”) Citibank timely responded on June 14, 2023. (See ECF No. 7, “Resp.”) After carefully considering Citibank’s Response, Plaintiff Andres Matzner’s Complaint (ECF No. 1 at 6–15, “Compl.”), and the relevant law, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division. BACKGROUND …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.