Wong et al v. American Servicing Company, Inc. et al
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 5/7/10: Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)
<![CDATA[
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
v. AMERICAN SERVICING COMPANY, INC., LITTON LOAN SERVICING, MERIDIAS CAPITAL, INC., FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE SERVICES, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., MERIDIAS CAPITAL INC. WILLIAM A. ARRIOLA, BRENT HICKS and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Defendants. ____________________________/ ----oo0oo---This matter is before the court on the motions of Meridias Capital, Inc. ("Meridias"), Brent Hicks ("Hicks"), American Servicing Company, Inc. ("American Servicing"), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), and First American Loanstar Trustee Services ("Loanstar") to dismiss plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") pursuant to Federal 1 GARY T. WONG and MARIA WONG Plaintiffs, NO. 2:09-CV-01506 FCD/DAD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----
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
Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6).
On March 23, 2010,
plaintiffs Gary T. Wong and Maria Wong (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed plaintiff filed a statement of nonopposition, requesting that their claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") against the moving defendants be dismissed without prejudice. (Docket #s 60-2, 60-3, 61-2, 61-3.)
On April 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the TILA and RESPA claims against defendant Dyck O'Neal, Inc., who had not yet been served. (Docket #68.)
Based on plaintiffs' filings, the court dismisses the RESPA and TILA claims asserted in the TAC. See, e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a); Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (a defendant's filing of a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b), does not prevent the plaintiffs from later filing a voluntary dismissal). Dismissal of the RESPA and TILA claims leaves the complaint devoid of any federal claims. The remaining claims are state law
claims for violation of the California Rosenthal Act, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful foreclosure. Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d The court's decision
999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed 2
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
by values of "economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." at 1001 (citations omitted).
Id.
Further, primary responsibility for
developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated before trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,
350 (1988); Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) ("In the usual case in which federallaw claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.") (quoting Schneider v. TRW Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991)). In accordance with Section
1367(c), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Plaintiffs' complaint is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 7, 2010
FRANK C. DAMRELL, 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?
