(PS) Kumar et al v. New Century Mortgage Corporation et al, No. 2:2011cv00338 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/18/2012 ADOPTING and AUGMENTING 10 Findings and Recommendations; DISMISSING, with prejudice, Plaintiffs' federal claims; CASE CLOSED; REMANDING Plaintiffs' state claims to Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to enter judgment on Plaintiffs' federal claims. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Kumar et al v. New Century Mortgage Corporation et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ASHWINI L. KUMAR, RAJENDRA KUMAR, 9 Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 14 15 v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, RECONTRUST COMPANY, CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. ________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:11-cv-00338-GEB-GGH ORDER 16 On June 5, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and 17 recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which 18 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 19 were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 10.) No objections were 20 filed. Accordingly, any findings of fact are presumed correct. 21 v. See United The 22 Orand States, 23 magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 The portion of the Findings and Recommendations concerning 26 dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal claims is ADOPTED and augmented as 27 follows. 28 federal claims, and since Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to Recontrust Plaintiffs’ 602 F.2d conclusory 207, 208 allegations (9th fail Cir. to 1979). See Britt allege viable 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Company’s dismissal motion, and the Order to Show Cause filed May 15, 2 2012, convey they cannot allege viable federal claims, Plaintiffs’ 3 federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. 4 In light of this dismissal, the issue is reached whether 5 supplemental 6 Plaintiffs’ state claims. “[P]endent [or supplemental] jurisdiction is 7 a doctrine of discretion, not of [a party’s] right.” 8 Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). 9 discretion to sua sponte “decid[e] whether to decline, or to retain, 10 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when any factor in [28 11 U.S.C.§ 1367(c)] is implicated[.]” 12 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). 13 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” pendent state claims if “the 14 district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 15 jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “While discretion to decline to 16 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by 17 the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by 18 the Gibbs values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri, 19 114 F.3d at 1001. 20 jurisdiction Judicial economy should does continue being exercised over United Mine District courts have Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 not A district court can “decline favor continuing to exercise 21 supplemental jurisdiction in this action since none of the state law 22 claims have been addressed on the merits. See Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 23 337, 338 (9th Cir. 1986)(“The district court, of course, has the 24 discretion to determine whether its investment of judicial energy 25 justifies retention of jurisdiction or if it should more properly 26 dismiss the claims without prejudice.”)(internal citation omitted). Nor 27 do 28 supplemental jurisdiction since “[n]eedless decisions of state law the comity and fairness factors 2 weigh in favor of exercising 1 should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice 2 between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of 3 applicable law.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. 4 Since the Gibbs factors do not weigh in favor continued 5 exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims, 6 Plaintiffs’ state claims are remanded to the Sacramento County Superior 7 Court in California. Further, the Clerk of Court shall entered judgment 8 on Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to this order. 9 Dated: July 18, 2012 10 11 12 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
