Blomquist et al. v. GMAC Mortgage et al.
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/3/10 ORDERING that the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This case shall be closed. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 On February 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a statement of non18 opposition to a motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' "TILA and 19 RESPA causes of action" in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 20 ("SAC"). 21 opposition statement a "request that these causes of action be 22 dismissed without prejudice." 23 and RESPA claims are dismissed without prejudice. 24 Since this dismissal terminates all federal claims in 25 Plaintiffs' SAC, the Court decides whether it should continue 26 27 28
*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
COLETTE Y. BLOMQUIST and FEDERICK H. BLOMQUIST,
GMAC MORTGAGE; UNION FIDELITY MORTGAGE, INC.; EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC dba ETS SERVICES, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; UNION FIDELITY MORTGAGE INC. dba UNION FIDELITY MORTGAGE; GEORGE ROBERT PAUL; RANDOLPH BERKELEY MARTIN; CASEY SLEVIN, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
2:09-cv-00891-GEB-EFB ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' FEDERAL CLAIMS AND DECLINING EXERCISE OF SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL OVER PLAINTIFFS' STATE CLAIMS*
(Non-Opp'n 1:25-28.)
Plaintiffs include in their non-
(Id. 2:1.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs' TILA
argument.
This matter is deemed to be suitable for decision without oral E.D. Cal. R. 230(g). 1
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
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim" if "all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" have been dismissed. "While discretion to decline . . . supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the . . . values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity" as delineated by the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). "Since state courts have the primary responsibility to develop and apply state law, . . . the Gibbs values do not favor exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over [Plaintiffs'] state claims . . . ." Anderson v. Countrywide Fin., No. 2:08-cv-01220-GEB-GGH,
2009 WL 3368444, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009); see also Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001 (stating that "in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point towards declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining statelaw claims) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Therefore,
Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Dated: March 3, 2010 This case shall be closed.
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
