Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01798/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01798-3/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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders these matters submitted on the

briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TERESA ALEXANDER,

NO. CIV. S-09-1798 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY;

OWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; NEW

CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants’ various

motions to dismiss and to strike (Docket #s 30, 31, 34, 35)

(collectively, “defendants”) plaintiff Teresa L. Alexander’s

(“plaintiff”) first amended complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (f).1 On February 1 and 4,

2010, plaintiff filed oppositions to defendants’ motions, in

which she opposed the dismissal of her state law causes of action

Case 2:09-cv-01798-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/30/10 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 To date, plaintiff has not served New Century, and it

has not joined in the motions or otherwise appeared in the

action. NDEx filed an answer to the FAC but subsequently filed a

joinder in the pending motions (Docket #52).

2

but agreed to the dismissal of her federal claim alleged against

some of the moving defendants pursuant to the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). (Docket #s 41, 43.) She

also did not file a substantive opposition to defendants’ request

for dismissal of her eleventh claim for relief, alleging a

violation of federal bankruptcy laws. Plaintiff separately filed

on March 22, 2010, a statement indicating she did not intend to

pursue any federal claims for relief against any named

defendants; plaintiff’s FAC alleges a RESPA and federal Truth in

Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against a non-moving defendant New

Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”), as well as a

federal bankruptcy claim against defendant NDEx West, LLC

(“NDEx”). (Docket #s 54, 55)2

Based on plaintiff’s filings, the court dismisses the RESPA,

TILA and federal bankruptcy claims asserted in the FAC. See,

e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139

(9th Cir. 2003) (a defendant’s filing of a motion to dismiss,

pursuant to Rule 12(b), does not prevent the plaintiff from later

filing a voluntary dismissal).

Dismissal of these claims leaves the complaint devoid of any

federal claims. The remaining claims are state law claims for

violation of the California Rosenthal Act, negligence, breach of

fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of California Business and

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

Case 2:09-cv-01798-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/30/10 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

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

foreclosure. (FAC, filed Sept. 8, 2009.) 

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

district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over state law claims. See Acri v. Varian Assoc., 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) (“In the usual case in which federallaw 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 Section

1367(c), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is therefore DISMISSED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: March 29, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-01798-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 03/30/10 Page 3 of 3