Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01026/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01026-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CHERI KEEN,

Civ. No. S-09-1026 FCD/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICING, INC., OPTION ONE

MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AHMSI

DEFAULT SERVICES, INC., T.D.

SERVICE CO., WELLS FARGO BANK,

N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE

MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-3

ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES,

SERIES 2006-3, PRIME EQUITY

LENDING, INC., MICHAEL F.

PEREZ, SARAH LEE, and DOES 1-

20 inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on the motions of defendants

T.D. Service Company, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,

AHMSI Default Services, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Option

One Mortgage Corporation to dismiss plaintiff Cheri Keen’s

Case 2:09-cv-01026-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

(“plaintiff”) second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6). On February 9, 2010,

plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition, requesting that

her claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”)

and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) be

dismissed without prejudice. (Docket # 48.) 

FRCP 41(a) provides that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss

an action without court order by filing a notice of dismissal

before the opposing party files an answer or a motion for summary

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a). The defendant’s filing of a

motion to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b), does not prevent the

plaintiff from later filing a voluntary dismissal pursuant to

Rule 41(a). Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). 

At the time that plaintiff filed her statement of non-opposition

requesting the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under TILA and

RESPA, none of the defendants had filed a motion for summary

judgment or an answer to the complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to

FRCP 41(a), plaintiff’s TILA and RESPA claims are dismissed

without prejudice. 

Dismissal of the TILA and RESPA claims leaves the complaint

devoid of any federal claims. The remaining claims are state law

claims for negligence, violation of the California Rosenthal Act,

breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of California Business

and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., breach of contract, breach

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and

wrongful foreclosure. (Pl.’s Second Am. Compl. (“Compl.”).) 

Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),

district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

Case 2:09-cv-01026-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

over state law claims. See Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114

F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). The court’s decision

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed

by values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Id.

at 1001 (citations omitted). Further, primary responsibility for

developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. 

Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated before trial,

district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,

350 (1988); Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d

1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[I]n the usual case in which

federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of

factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”)(quoting

Schneider v. TRW Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991)). In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining

state law claims.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 18, 2010.

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01026-FCD-KJM Document 51 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3