Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02001/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02001-1/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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ISABEL B. MARTINEZ,

NO. CIV. S-09-2001 FCD DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

ENCORE CREDIT CORP., A 

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on the motion of defendants

EMC Mortgage Corporation and Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. (“defendants”) to dismiss plaintiff Isabel B.

Martinez’s (“plaintiff”) first amended complaint (“FAC”) pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 (Docket #18.) On

February 26, 2010, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’

motion, in which she opposed the dismissal of her state law

Case 2:09-cv-02001-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/02/10 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 It does not appear plaintiff has served Encore with the

FAC, and Encore has not joined the motion or otherwise appeared

in the action.

2

causes of action but agreed to the dismissal of the sole federal

claim alleged against defendants pursuant to the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). (Docket #22 at 9.) She

separately filed on February 26, a statement of non-opposition to

the motion, asking that the court dismiss her RESPA claim, as

well as her other federal claim for relief brought pursuant to

the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). In her FAC, plaintiff alleges

a TILA claim against named defendant Encore Credit Corporation

(“Encore”). (Docket #23.)2

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

and TILA claims. 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 the RESPA and TILA 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, and

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

(FAC, filed Sept. 29, 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

Case 2:09-cv-02001-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/02/10 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

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 2, 2010

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02001-FCD-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 3