Goo v. Bank of America, N.A.

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL NO. 21-00023 LEK-RT CASE NAME: Kendall E. Goo vs. Bank of America, N.A.

JUDGE: Leslie E. Kobayashi DATE: 03/16/2021 COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER INFORMING THE PARTIES OF THE COURT’S RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER OF REMAND On February 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Kendall E. Goo and Laura L. Goo (“the Goos”) filed their Motion for Order of Remand (“Motion”). [Dkt. no. 13.] Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) filed its memorandum in opposition on February 26, 2021, and the Goos filed their reply on March 5, 2021. [Dkt. nos. 17, 19.] This Court has found the Motion suitable for disposition without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c). [Dkt. no. 21.] The parties are hereby informed that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The Motion is GRANTED, insofar as this Court concludes that the case must be remanded for reasons similar to those set forth in Inokuma v. Bank of America, N.A., CIV. NO. 20-00178 LEK-RT, 2020 WL 4455102 (D. Hawai`i Aug. 3, 2020), and Green v. Bank of America, N.A., CIV. NO. 20-00177 LEK-KJM, 2020 WL 6150474 (D. Hawai`i Oct. 20, 2020). Because the reasons set forth in Inokuma and Green are sufficient to support remand in the instant case, it is not necessary for this Court to address the Goos’ other arguments, including that the removal occurred beyond the one-year removal period described in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c), and their argument based on the voluntary/involuntary rule. The Motion is DENIED as to the Goos’ request for an award of removal-related attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

A written order will follow that will supersede these rulings. If BOA wishes to file a motion for reconsideration, it must wait until the written order is filed to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Submitted by: Agalelei Elkington, Courtroom Manager