CJ Investment Services, Inc., v. Williams
Filing
10
ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; Remanding Case. The seventh and eighth causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as those claims are asserted against the Government. The balance of this action is REMANDED to Santa Clara County S uperior Court for further proceedings. The clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/31/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/31/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
CJ INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., et. al.,
11
12
13
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00866 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO DISMISS; REMANDING
CASE
Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS, et. al.,
14
[Docket Item No(s). 8]
Defendant(s).
15
/
16
17
I.
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’1 Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) their claims
18
against Defendant United States of America (the “Government”) without prejudice. See Docket
19
Item No. 8. Defendants have not filed an opposition to this motion, and the time for filing an
20
opposition has passed.
21
The court has reviewed this matter and finds it appropriate for decision without oral
22
argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing scheduled for September 14, 2012, will
23
therefore be vacated and Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted. Because that decision leaves this court
24
1
25
26
27
28
In addition to CJ Investment Services, Inc., the additional moving plaintiffs are David A.
Gray, Richard M. Oderio, Calvin B. Cornwell, Carla J. Cornwell, Ignatius Palermo, Trustee of the
Palermo Living Trust u/t/d February 6, 1995, Wiley Austin Smith and Marilyn Joan Smith, as
Trustees for the Smith Living Trust u/t/d April 22, 1992, Dianna Sue Stickney, Trustee of the
Stickney Living Trust u/t/d August 31, 2000, Craig R. Dulis and Gloria J. Dulis, Trustees of the
Craig R. Dulis and Gloria J. Dulis Revocable Living Trust u/t/d March 29, 1995, Mark A. Parelius,
Trustee of the M. Ronald Parelius Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust u/t/d September 16, 1999, and
Kaleen Abel, Trustee of the Abel Family Trust B.
1
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00866 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; REMANDING CASE
1
without subject matter jurisdiction, this action will be remanded to the state court from which it
2
originated.
3
4
II.
BACKGROUND
The court recounts the relevant factual and procedural background as it has previously. This
5
action arose out of a loan Plaintiffs made to Defendant Michael Williams (“Williams”) secured by
6
real property located at 3005 Duval Court, Gilroy, California (the “Property”). Williams defaulted
7
on the deed of trust, and Plaintiffs moved to foreclose on the Property. In doing so, however,
8
Plaintiffs discovered several other obligations, liens, and judgments against the Property, including a
9
tax lien held by the Government.
On July 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an action against the various entities and individuals
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
claiming an interest in the Property, including Williams. After Plaintiffs filed an amended
12
complaint, the Government removed the action to this court. See Docket Item No. 1, Case No. 5:08-
13
cv-05550 EJD.
14
Nearly three years after Plaintiffs commenced the action in state court, the Government filed
15
a Notice of Disclaimer disclaiming any interest in the Property. See Docket No. 33. This
16
eventually resulted in a stipulation for entry of judgment between Plaintiffs and all lienholder
17
defendants except one, wherein the parties agreed that all liens would be subordinate to Plaintiffs’
18
loan (the “Subordination Agreement”). See Docket No. 42, Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD.
19
Plaintiffs eventually moved to sever the first and second causes of action for quiet title and
20
declaratory relief and moved for summary judgement on those claims. On November 24, 2010, this
21
court’s predecessor granted the motion for summary judgment as to the first and second causes of
22
action and held that the Subordination Agreement was a valid agreement, entitling Plaintiffs’ lien to
23
first priority over all others. See Docket Item No 55, Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD. The court
24
ordered Plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment.
25
Plaintiffs submitted the proposed judgment to the court on December 10, 2010. See Docket
26
Item No. 56, Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD . The court declined to enter it, however, because of its
27
perception that it exceeded the scope of the summary judgment order. See Docket Item No. 58,
28
Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD. Plaintiffs submitted a new judgment on February 28, 2011. See
2
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00866 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; REMANDING CASE
1
Docket Item No. 59, Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD. The case was then reassigned to the undersigned
2
on April 25, 2011. See Docket Item No. 60, Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD.
3
On October 27, 2011, Plaintiffs renewed their motion to sever the first and second causes of
4
action from the remainder of the amended complaint. This court granted the motion, ordered the
5
claims severed, and ordered the clerk to open the instant case for the remaining claims, all of which
6
arise under state law.2 See Docket Item No. 73, Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD.
7
Judgment was entered on the first and second causes of action on March 19, 2012. See
8
Docket Item No. 76, Case No. 5:08-cv-05550 EJD. Plaintiffs now move to dismiss the Government
9
from the seventh and eighth causes of action. See Docket Item No. 8, Case No. 5:12-cv-00866 EJD.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
III.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows a plaintiff, pursuant to an order of the court,
12
and subject to any terms and conditions the court deems proper, to dismiss an action without
13
prejudice at any time. When ruling on a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the district court must
14
determine whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.
15
Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 1994); Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber
16
Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982).
17
Here, the court cannot find any prejudice to the Government in dismissing it from the two
18
remaining causes of action to which it is a party. As explained above, the Government disclaimed
19
any interest in the Property at issue and the court found such disclaimer valid in the order granting
20
summary judgment. Accordingly, the Government has no further interest in the remaining causes of
21
action and should therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
22
The court recognizes that the decision to dismiss the Government leaves the court without a
23
basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Furthermore, the court
24
finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction because, at this point, issues of state law
25
26
27
28
2
It appears the Order granting the Motion to Sever contains an error in the instruction for the
clerk to assign a new case number to the first and second causes of action. In actuality, the first and
second causes of action remained under the original case number, 5:08-cv-05550 EJD, and the
remainder of the action was assigned case number 5:12-cv-00866 EJD. The judgment entered in
case number 5:08-cv-05550 EJD resolved the first and second causes of action.
3
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00866 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; REMANDING CASE
1
“substantially predominate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). An order remanding this action will be entered
2
as a result.
3
4
IV.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Item No. 8) is GRANTED.
5
The seventh and eighth causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as those
6
claims are asserted against the Government.
7
The balance of this action is REMANDED to Santa Clara County Superior Court for further
8
proceedings.3 The clerk shall close this file.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Dated: August 31, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Considering the somewhat complicated procedural circumstances, it is worth noting here
for the sake of clarity that this case is merely an offshoot of the case originally removed from Santa
Clara County Superior Court (5:08-cv-05550 EJD). The original state court case number was
107CV089734.
4
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00866 EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; REMANDING CASE
]]>
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?
