Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02346/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02346-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDO MEJIA and DEBRA

MEJIA,

NO. CIV. S-09-2346 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v.

O R D E R

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs bring claims against numerous defendants relating

to plaintiffs' home loan. Plaintiffs’ complaint was initially

filed in this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction,

as plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Truth in Lending

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“TILA”), the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617, (“RESPA”). On January 8,

2010, defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss,

which was noticed for hearing for February 8, 2010. (Dkt. No. 33).

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs were obliged to file an

Case 2:09-cv-02346-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 5
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

2

opposition or statement of non-opposition by January 25.

Plaintiffs failed to file either document. On January 28, the

court issued an order continuing the hearing on the motion to

dismiss, ordering plaintiffs to file an opposition or statement of

non-opposition by February 8, and ordering plaintiffs to show cause

why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply with the Local

Rules, including dismissal and/or $150.

Plaintiffs failed to file either document by the February 8

deadline. On February 9, however, plaintiffs stated their nonopposition as to dismissal of the federal claims, although

plaintiffs requested that dismissal be without prejudice. (Dkt.

No. 40). Plaintiffs have not addressed the pending motion as it

pertains to the state law claims. Nor have plaintiffs filed a

response to the order to show cause. Thus, plaintiffs have

violated, and remain in violation of, the Local Rules and this

court’s January 28 order.

The court dismisses the federal claims with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have provided no argument in support of their request

that dismissal of these claims be without prejudice. A review of

defendants’ motion reveals that dismissal is appropriate as to

these claims.

When federal claims are eliminated at this stage, federal

courts will ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

1367(c). Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350

(1988), see also Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40

Case 2:09-cv-02346-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Schneider v. TRW Inc., 938

F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991)). However, the court may also

dismiss claims as a sanction for violation of the Local Rules and

court orders. Local Rule 110, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53

(9th Cir. 1995). Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

differs from dismissal as a sanction in that the former is not an

adjudication on the merits, whereas the later is. Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b). Accordingly, the form of dismissal determines whether

plaintiffs may re-file these claims in state court.

Public policy favors resolution of cases on the merits,

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53, and if the merits of plaintiffs’ state law

claims were to be reached, it would be preferable that they be

reached by a state court, Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350. In

this case, however, plaintiffs have twice declined to offer any

defense of the merits of their state law claims. Plaintiffs’

actions have had the effect, if not the intent, of needlessly

drawing out this litigation and imposing costs upon the defendants

and the court. Because the court will dismiss the state law claims

one way or another, dismissal as a sanction is not necessary for

the future management of this court’s docket, but plaintiffs’

blatant failure to comply with the prior order to show cause in

this case indicates that lesser sanctions will be inadequate to

ensure future diligence should this case be re-filed in state

court. Finally, the court warned plaintiffs of the possibility of

dismissal in the January 28 order, and plaintiffs have ignored that

order’s instruction to show cause as to why dismissal is

Case 2:09-cv-02346-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

unwarranted. 

The court notes that this is not the only case in which

plaintiffs’ counsel, Sharon Lapin, has failed to comply with the

Local Rules and this court’s orders. See, e.g., Mensah v. GMAC

Mortgage, No. 2:09-cv-3196, Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show

Cause (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010). The sanctions issued here are the

result of misconduct in this case and the failure to cure that

misconduct when offered an opportunity to do so.

For these reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

for failure to state a claim and in light of plaintiffs’

stated non-opposition to dismissal.

2. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to

comply with Local Rule 230(c) and this court’s order of

January 28, 2010. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b),

this dismissal shall operate as an adjudication on the

merits.

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel is SANCTIONED in the amount of one

hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars for failure to

comply with Local Rule 230(c) and file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition by January 25, 2010. This

sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later

than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order.

Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying the payment

of this sanction which states that it is paid personally

Case 2:09-cv-02346-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and will

not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or

in any way made the responsibility of the client as

attorneys' fees or costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02346-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 02/25/10 Page 5 of 5