Lourim et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/25/2010 ORDERING that this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close the file. CASE CLOSED. (Engbretson, K.)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiffs Patrick Lourim and Donna Lourim ("Plaintiffs") obtained a home loan in October 2005. Presently before the Court AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., et. al., Defendants. ----oo0oo---MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATRICK LOURIM and DONNA LOURIM No. 2:09-cv-01101-MCE-GGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
is a Motion by Defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Power Default Services f/k/a AHMSI Default Services, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (collectively "Defendants") to Dismiss the claims alleged against them in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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
Defendants also move for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(e).1 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleged violations of both federal and state laws, including the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq. ("RESPA") and the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA"). However, Plaintiffs' have subsequently filed a
Statement of Non-Opposition in which they do not oppose dismissal of their federal claims alleging violations of TILA and RESPA. With only Plaintiffs' state law claims remaining, this Court ceases to have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. The
Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state causes of action and they are dismissed without prejudice. The Court need not address the merits of Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 21) as those issues are now moot. Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement (Docket No. 21) is also moot. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 2
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
Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs are cautioned against filing Complaints in this Court and then dismissing the federal claims as soon as a Motion to Dismiss is filed. For the reasons stated above, the case is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 25, 2010
_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
]]>
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?
