Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01916-3/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----

DAVID SHEPHERD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICES, INC.; AMERICAN

BROKERS CONDUIT; AHMSI DEFAULT

SERVICES, INC.; DEUTSCHE

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; TREE

HOUSE FINANCIAL MORTGAGE

COMPANY; RAME ALBERT BATTA;

NASRAT BATTA; and DOES 1-20

inclusive,

Defendants. /

NO. CIV. 2:09-1916 WBS GGH

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff David Shepherd filed this action in federal

court on July 14, 2009, against defendants American Home Mortgage

Services, Inc. (“AHMSI”), American Brokers Conduit 

(“ABC”), AHMSI Default Services, Inc. (“AHMSI Default”), Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), Deutsche National

Case 2:09-cv-01916-WBS-GGH Document 50 Filed 02/25/10 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

1 Defendants AHMSI, AHMSI Default, and Deutsche filed a

brief indicating their lack of opposition to dismissal. (Docket

No. 48.) Rame Batta did not file any statement in response to

the court’s Order and defendants Tree House, Nasarat Batta, and

ABC have not yet appeared in this action. 

2

Trust Company (“Deutsche”), Tree House Financial Mortgage Company

(“Tree House”), and Rame Albert Batta. (Docket No. 1.) 

Plaintiff asserted that the basis of this court’s jurisdiction

over the action was federal question jurisdiction, predicated on

his claim for violations of the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”), 15

U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f. (Docket No. 2.) After plaintiff filed a

Second Amended Complaint on December 10, 2009 that no longer

asserted any federal claims (Docket No. 43), the court issued an

Order on February 2, 2010 requiring the parties to show cause why

this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c). (Docket No. 46.) Neither plaintiff nor any of the

defendants opposed dismissal of this action.1

 (See Docket Nos.

47, 48.) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3), a district court may

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law

claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which

it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);

see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th

Cir. 1997) (“[A] federal district court with power to hear state

law claims has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, them under

the conditions set out in § 1367(c).”). Factors for a court to

consider in deciding whether to dismiss supplemental state claims

include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th

Case 2:09-cv-01916-WBS-GGH Document 50 Filed 02/25/10 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

Cir. 1992). “[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.” Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d

1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 1996) overruled on other grounds by Acri,

114 F.3d at 1000. 

 As none of the parties oppose dismissal of this action

and have not posed any extraordinary or unusual circumstances

that would counsel against dismissal, the court will decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) as to the

Second Amended Complaint’s state law claims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without

prejudice.

DATED: February 25, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-01916-WBS-GGH Document 50 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3