Crawford v. American Servicing Corp., et al.,
Filing
51
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/1/2011 ORDERING that the federal claims against all defedants are DISMISSED and Plaintiff's state claims are REMANDED to the Superior Court of California in the County of Yolo, from which this case was removed. CASE CLOSED. (Yolo Superior Court) (Duong, D) Modified on 11/2/2011 (Duong, D).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
AUBREY CRAWFORD, individual as,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
18
AMERICA’S SERVICING CORP.; FIRST
AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE
SERVICES; US BANK N.A.; WELLS
FARGO BANK N.A.; NEW CENTURY
TITLE; NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE
CORP.; DOES individuals 1 to 50,
Inclusive; ROES Corporations 1
to 30, Inclusive; and all other
persons and entities unknown
claiming any right, title,
estate, lien or interest in the
real property described in the
Complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s
ownership, or any cloud upon
Plaintiff’s title thereto,
19
Defendants.
________________________________
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-01198-GEB-JFM
ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL
CLAIMS AND REMANDING STATE
CLAIMS*
20
21
Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”); U.S. Bank
22
National Association (“U.S. Bank”); and First American Loanstar Trustee
23
Services LLC (“First American”), each filed a motion seeking dismissal
24
of Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
25
arguing Plaintiff fails to state a viable claim. Plaintiff opposes the
26
portion of each motion challenging the sufficiency of his state claims;
27
28
*
argument.
This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1
1
however, Plaintiff states he will dismiss his federal claims against all
2
Defendants.
3
Plaintiff alleges federal claims under the following Acts:
4
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the Fair Credit
5
Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Since each moving Defendant is correct in
6
stating Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state viable
7
claims under either federal Act, Plaintiff’s RESPA and FCRA claims are
8
dismissed against all Defendants. See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813
9
F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua
10
sponte under [Rule] 12(b)(6) . . . without notice where the claimant
11
cannot possibly win relief.”); see also Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury,
12
644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating court may enter sua sponte
13
dismissal as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such
14
defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants).
15
Further, since this case was removed from state court based on
16
federal question jurisdiction and only state claims now remain in the
17
case, the Court may sua sponte decide whether to continue exercising
18
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims. Under 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental
20
jurisdiction over a [state] claim” if “all claims over which it has
21
original jurisdiction” have been dismissed.
22
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
23
is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c),
24
[and] is informed by the . . . values of economy, convenience, fairness
25
and comity” as delineated by the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of
26
Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc.,
27
114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
28
Judicial
economy
does
not
2
favor
The “discretion [whether]
continuing
to
exercise
1
supplemental jurisdiction since time has not been invested analyzing the
2
state claims. See Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 337, 338 (9th Cir. 1986)
3
(“[T]he district court, of course, has the discretion to determine
4
whether
5
jurisdiction or if it should more properly dismiss the claims without
6
prejudice.”) (citation omitted). Nor do the comity and fairness factors
7
weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction since “[n]eedless
8
decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and
9
to
its
promote
investment
justice
of
between
judicial
the
energy
parties,
by
justifies
retention
procuring
for
them
of
a
10
surer-footed
11
Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims are remanded to the Superior Court
12
of California in the County of Yolo, from which this case was removed.
13
Dated:
reading
of
applicable
law.”
Gibbs,
383
U.S.
November 1, 2011
14
15
16
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
at
726.
]]>
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?
