Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05570/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05570-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

ELISEO A. ULLOA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB; WORLD 

SAVINGS BANK, FSB; NDEX WEST, LLC; 

LOAN SOURCE FINANCIAL; MURRY 

STUART KALISH; BILLY WIGLEY; and 

DOES 1-20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-5570 SBA 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 On November 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant action against various entities and 

individuals whom he alleges defrauded him in connection with a mortgage on his property. The 

Complaint alleged federal claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), along with various state law claims. 

On December 30, 2009, Defendant Wachovia Mortgage filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In response, Plaintiff filed a statement of nonopposition in which he agreed to dismiss his TILA and RESPA claims, and simultaneously filed a 

First Amended Complaint on February 18, 2010, alleging only state law causes of action. (Docket 

25.) Because the federal claims giving rise to this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 had 

been dismissed, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) on February 24 2010, to show 

cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling 

in state court. 

On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed his response to the OSC in which he expressed no 

objection to the Court declining to assert supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over the 

remaining state law claims and to the dismissal of the case without prejudice to his refiling the 

Case 4:09-cv-05570-SBA Document 32 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

action in state court. As the party invoking this Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff has the authority to 

predicate his action solely on state law. See Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 

(9th Cir. 2009) (“the plaintiff is ‘the master of his complaint’ and may ‘avoid federal jurisdiction 

by relying exclusively on state law.’”) (quoting in part Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film 

Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to refiling in state court. Each side shall bear its own fees and costs. Nothing in this 

order shall be construed as having any preclusive effect in a subsequently-filed state court action. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters in this action. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2010 ____________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-05570-SBA Document 32 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2