Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02188/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02188-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN J. HRIM, and No. 2:09-cv-02188-MCE-DAD

MARYBETH HRIM,

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC;

HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK,

INC.; PROFESSIONAL MORTGAGE

BROKERS, INC. DBA VINTAGE

MORTGAGE GROUP; LAURA E. RANEY;

ROSLYN ROGERS; MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,

INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in

which Plaintiffs Kevin Hrim and Marybeth Hrim (“Plaintiffs”)

financed their home in 2005. Presently before the Court is a

Motion by Defendants Homecomings Financial LLC f/k/a Homecomings

Financial Network, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. (“Defendants”) to Dismiss the claims alleged

against them in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Case 2:09-cv-02188-MCE -DAD Document 59 Filed 04/27/10 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 

2

Concurrently, Defendants Professional Mortgage Brokers Inc., dba

Vintage Mortgage Group, Laura Raney, and Roslyn Rogers (also

“Defendants”) have similarly moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second

Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint alleges only state law

causes of action. Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to the Motions to

Dismiss acknowledges the lack of a federal cause of action and

requests that the Court take notice that the Second Amended

Complaint contains no federal claims. Plaintiffs further state

that they have “no objection to the Court’s dismissal without

prejudice of this matter.” Pls.’ Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss 2:12-

14. 

With only Plaintiffs’ state law claims remaining, this Court

ceases to have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. The

Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the

remaining state causes of action and they are dismissed without

prejudice. The Court need not address the merits of Defendants’

Motions to Dismiss (Docket No. 50 and 51) as those issues are now

moot.1

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02188-MCE -DAD Document 59 Filed 04/27/10 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

Plaintiffs are cautioned against filing complaints in this

Court and then dismissing the federal claims as soon as a Motion

to Dismiss is filed. 

For the reasons stated above, the case is dismissed.

The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02188-MCE -DAD Document 59 Filed 04/27/10 Page 3 of 3