Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00643/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00643-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM E. PERRYMAN,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; QUALITY 

LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; and DOES 

1 through 50, inclusive,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-00643 LJO SKO

ORDER CLARIFYING AND 

AMENDING THE COURT'S AUGUST 

22, 2016, ORDER

On August 23, 2016, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand but granted in part 

Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ECOA claim. As diversity jurisdiction was not established 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the claim supporting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

was dismissed, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state 

law claims and remanded the action to Kings County Superior Court. In doing so, the Court ordered

the Clerk of Court to close this case. (Doc. 16, 16:3 ("The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this 

case").) 

The Court has become aware that the Kings County Superior Court Clerk's Office 

misunderstood this order and incorrectly assumed this Court was ordering the Kings County Superior 

Court Clerk to close its own case, number 16C-0088. The Kings County Superior Court's case number 

16C-0088 is now closed following an erroneous entry of judgment. To be clear, this Court has no 

jurisdiction to order the Kings County Superior Court Clerk to close its own case (No. 16C-0088) upon 

remand; rather, this Court's order was directing its own Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of 

California to close case number 1:16-cv-00643-LJO-SKO. Although this Court has made numerous

Case 1:16-cv-00643-LJO-SKO Document 17 Filed 10/19/16 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

2

informal contacts with the Kings County Superior Court Clerk's Office, this issue has not been resolved 

and the state court case remains closed.1 

Therefore, the Court hereby CLARIFIES and AMENDS its August 22, 2016 (Doc. 16), order as 

follows:

1. The Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED;

2. Chase's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's ECOA claim which is 

dismissed with prejudice, and the Motion to Dismiss is otherwise DENIED without 

prejudice;

3. The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims;

4. This case is REMANDED to Kings County Superior Court FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS; and

5. The Clerk of Court FOR THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA is DIRECTED to serve this order on the Kings County 

Superior Court and on the Kings County Superior Court Clerk of Court Jeffrey E. Lewis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

See https://cakingsodyprod.tylerhost.net/CAKINGSPROD/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 (last accessed on October 19,

2016).

Case 1:16-cv-00643-LJO-SKO Document 17 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 2