Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03149/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03149-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD TANNER AND CRISTINE TANNER, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:09-cv-03149-GEB-KJM

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS

) LEAVE TO AMEND, DENYING

BANK OF AMERICA fka COUNTRYWIDE ) DEFENDANTS’ PENDING MOTIONS

HOME LOANS; COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB; ) TO DISMISS AS MOOT, AND 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ) DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL 

SYSTEM, INC.; C.F. FINANCIAL, ) JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’

INC.; KEY BANK, N.A.; COUNTRYWIDE ) STATE CLAIMS

HOME LOANS; ANHIL B.SHAH; and DOES )

1-20, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Pending are motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint includes both federal and state claims. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to any pending motion, but on

February 12, 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

in which Plaintiffs only allege claims under California law. Although

Plaintiffs did not seek leave to file the FAC in a duly noticed filing

“denominate[d] [as a] a motion for leave to amend,” the court has

discretion to allow the FAC to be the operative pleading. Simons v.

U.S.,497 F.2d 1046, 1049 n.2 (internal citation and quotations

omitted); Edwards v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 892 F.2d 1442, 1445 n.2

(9th Cir. 1990) (noting circumstances may exist where a court has

Case 2:09-cv-03149-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 02/19/10 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

discretion to allow amendment of the complaint in absence of a formal

motion for leave to amend). 

Plaintiffs’ FAC is construed as a request for leave to amend

their complaint, which is granted. Therefore, Plaintiffs FAC is now

the operative pleading in this case. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v.

Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.

1989)(stating an amended complaint supercedes the prior complaint). 

Accordingly, the pending motions to dismiss are denied as moot since

the FAC supercedes the original complaint. 

Since Plaintiffs allege no federal claims in their FAC, the

Court decides whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs’ state claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) a district

court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a

[state] claim” if “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”

have been dimissed. “While discretion to decline . . . supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one

of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the . . . values of

economy, convenience, fairness and comity” as delineated by the

Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,

726 (1966). Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

“Since state courts have the primary responsibility to 

develop and apply state law, . . . the Gibbs values do not favor

exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over [Plaintiffs’] state claims

. . . .” Anderson v. Countrywide Fin., No. 2:08-cv-01220-GEB-GGH,

2009 WL 3368444, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009); see also Acri, 114

F.3d at 1001 (stating that “in the usual case in which all federal-law

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point

Case 2:09-cv-03149-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 02/19/10 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

towards declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining statelaw claims (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Therefore,

Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Dated: February 18, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:09-cv-03149-GEB -KJM Document 20 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 3