Iniguez et al v. Bank Of America fka Countrywide Home Loans et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/26/2010 ORDERING this case is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close the file; and 9 Motion to Dismiss and 12 Motion to Dismiss are now moot.Civil Case Terminated. CASE CLOSED. (Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ----oo0oo---18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiffs Ariana I. Inguez and Juan M. Barba ("Plaintiffs") obtained a home loan in January 2007. Presently v. BANK OF AMERICA, et. al., Defendants. ARIANA I. INGUEZ and JUAN M. BARBA No. 2:09-cv-02903-MCE-EFB Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
before the Court are Motions by Defendants Ryland Mortgage Company, Eugene Elder, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (erroneously sued as Bank of America f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans) and its successor BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., ReconTrust Company, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to Dismiss the claims alleged against them in Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ReconTrust Company, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. also move this Court to strike portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f). failed to timely file an opposition.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to a motion must be filed not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. The date of the hearing on motion was set for Fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing was No opposition was filed as required. Plaintiffs have
February 25, 2010. February 11, 2010.
As a result of Plaintiff's counsel Sharon Lapin's repeated failure to comply with Local Rules, within ten (10) days from the date this order is electronically filed, Lapin shall either (1) personally pay sanctions in the amount of $250.00 to the Clerk of the Court or (2) show good cause for the failure to
18 comply with Local Rule 230(c). 19 This Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' late-filed First 20 Amended Complaint. 21 violations of both federal and state laws, Plaintiffs' Amended 22 Complaint abandons their federal claims. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 2
1
While Plaintiffs' original Complaint alleged
With only Plaintiffs' state law claims remaining, this Court ceases to have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. The
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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' Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 9 and 12) as those issues are now moot. For the reasons stated above, the case is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 26, 2010
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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?
