Chang v. EMC Mortgage Corp. et al
Filing
36
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 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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). 1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TOU CHANG, Plaintiff, v. EMC MORTGAGE CORP., et. al., Defendants.
No. 2:09-cv-01644-MCE-KJN
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
----oo0oo---This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiff Tou Chang ("Plaintiff") obtained a home loan in June 2006. Presently before the Court is a Motion by Defendants
EMC Mortgage Corporation, Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corporation, and Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") to Dismiss the claims alleged against them in Plaintiff's First 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
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleged violations of both federal and state laws, including the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq. ("RESPA"). However,
Plaintiff subsequently filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in which he does not oppose dismissal of his federal claims alleging violations of TILA and RESPA. (Docket No. 16)2
With only Plaintiff's 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. 27) as those issues are now moot. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff is 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 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 25, 2010 The Clerk is directed to close
_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff's Opposition explicitly expresses non-opposition to dismissal of his RESPA claim. With respect to the TILA claim, Plaintiff has not explicitly opposed the motion, and based upon such lack of opposition, the Court dismisses the claim. 2
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?
