Gomez et al v. Wachovia Mortgage FSB et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on /26/10 ORDERING CASE DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED. (Williams, D) Modified on 5/27/2010 (Williams, D).
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB, et al., 15 Defendants. 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 Tarisco Gomez and Florinda Gomez ("Plaintiffs") refinanced their home in September 2005. Presently before the ----oo0oo---MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TARISCO GOMEZ and FLORINDA GOMEZ, No. 2:09-cv-02762-MCE-JFM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Court is a Motion by Defendant Wachovia Mortgage, FSB ("Defendant") to Dismiss the claims alleged against it in Plaintiffs' 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). Concurrently, Defendant moved to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b). 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
Defendant also filed a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f). Plaintiffs bring a Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint.1 In Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege 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, Plaintiffs have filed a Statement of Non-
Opposition in which they do not oppose dismissal of their federal claims alleging violations of TILA and RESPA. Additionally,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend their First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) so as to remove both the TILA and RESPA Causes of Action. This Court need not
address the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend because Plaintiffs' have already filed a Statement of Non-Opposition. Thus, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend (Docket No. 29) is moot. 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 Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24) as those issues are now moot. Additionally, the Motion to Strike (Docket No. 18) is moot. /// /// ///
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. 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
For the reasons stated above, the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 26, 2010 The Clerk is directed to close
_____________________________ 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?
