Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01506/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01506-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JODY B. FARMER AND PATRICIA )

FARMER, )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; )

EQUIFIRST CORPORATION; AZTEC )

FORECLOSURE CORPORATION; )

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC )

REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.; )

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL )

TRUST ) COMPANY; AFFLUENT )

LENDING INCORPORATED; TERRY )

ELLEN COLEMAN, AND DOES 1-20 ) 

INCLUSIVE, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:09-CV-1506 AWI-DLB

ORDER CLOSING CASE

On February 5, 2010, this court issued an order (“February 5 Order”), which dismissed

Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Specifically, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Truth-in-Lending Act

(“TILA”) claim against Defendant Equifirst without leave to amend and dismissed Plaintiffs’

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim against Defendants Equifirst without

leave to amend, and with leave to amend as to Ocwen. The court permitted Plaintiffs to file and

serve their amended complaint by February 17, 2010. The February 5 Order also forewarned

Plaintiffs that if they did not successfully amend their federal claims and cure the deficiencies,

the court was not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 41 at page 6. On

February 17, 2010, Jody B. Farmer and Patricia Farmer (collectively “Plaintiffs”) complied with

Case 1:09-cv-01506-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 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

the court’s order and filed a Second-Amended complaint.

 The basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction was the presence of a federal

question. See First-Amended Complaint at ¶ 1. The Second-Amended complaint, however,

omits any allegation regarding the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and also no longer alleges

any federal causes of action. In other words, Plaintiffs have dropped all of their federal claims. 1

All that remains in the active complaint are state law claims. See Second-Amended Complaint. 

Since the Second-Amended complaint contains no federal claims, “there [are] no claims to which

the state claims could be supplemental.” Wellness Cmty. Nat’l v. Wellness House, 70 F.3d 46,

50 (7th Cir. 1995); see Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir.

2007). The Court no longer sees a basis for jurisdiction; therefore, dismissal of the complaint is

appropriate. See Pintando, 501 F.3d at 1243-44; Wellness Cmty, 70 F.3d at 50; Boelens v.

Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 506-08 (5th Cir. 1985); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);

Religious Tech. Ctr v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court; and

2. The Clerk shall CLOSE the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The court notes that there has never been any allegation of diversity jurisdiction.

1

2

Case 1:09-cv-01506-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2