Dickens v. Franklin Credit Management Corp.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LAWRENCE E. DICKENS, Case No.: 24-cv-01379-CAB-KSC 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING REMAND 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 FRANKLIN CREDIT MGMT CORP., et al., 12 [Doc. No. 21] Defendants. 13 15 The Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction through actual diversity. Plaintiff is a 16 California resident. Defendant Franklin is a resident of Delaware and New Jersey. [Doc. 17 No. 1-2 ¶ 10.] Defendant Bosco/Wilmington is also a resident of Delaware. [Doc. No. 1- 18 2 ¶ 11.] Based on the lien at issue in this case, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 19 Plaintiff’s motion for remand, including his request for sanctions and fees,1 is denied. 20 [Doc. No. 21.] 21 Generally, Plaintiff’s complaint urges a number of fraud claims related to a 2007 22 lien on his home. Defendants report that Plaintiff recently executed a modification on the 23 loan underlying the dispute in this case and has made a payment related to that loan. As 24 25 26 1 The Court has wide discretion in issuing sanctions and chooses not to award them here. Golden Eagle 27 Distrib. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir. 1986). In no way can Defendants’ conduct be characterized as sanctionable. Moreover, there are no grounds to award attorney’s fees in this 28 1 ||such, Defendants convincingly argue that Plaintiff has ratified the validity of the lien with 2 || the requested modification. 3 The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to explain why this case should not be 4 || dismissed by March 18, 2025. Instead of responding directly to that order, Plaintiff may 5 || file a motion to voluntarily dismiss this case. 6 7 It is so ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: March 4, 2025 € ZL 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28