Reyes v. Indymac Federal Bank, et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/26/2010 ORDERING the case is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close the file. 7 10 13 Motion to Dismiss are dismissed as moot. CASE CLOSED. (Matson, R)
<![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 This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiff Jess Reyes ("Plaintiff") obtained a home loan in June 2006. Presently before the Court are Motions by Defendants v. INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, et. al., Defendants. ----oo0oo---JESS C. REYES Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-03382-MCE-KJM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MTC Financial, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") to Dismiss the claims alleged against them in Plaintiff's 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
Defendant MTC Financial, Inc. concurrently moves to strike portions of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f). 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. Plaintiff has failed to timely file
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 comply with Local Rule 230(c). However, this Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's late-filed First Amended Complaint. While Plaintiff's original Complaint
alleged violations of both federal and state laws, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint abandons his federal claims. 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. ///
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
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
The Court need not address the merits of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 7, 10 and 13) as those issues are now moot. For the reasons stated above, the case is dismissed. Clerk is directed to close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 26, 2010 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The
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?
