Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02518/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02518-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAUL A. CILLUFFO and CHERRI L.

CILLUFFO,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL AKA

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION; LONG BEACH

MORTGAGE COMPANY; CALIFORNIA

RECONVEYANCE COMPANY;

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY; UNIVERSAL MORTGAGE

& SALES, INC.; ERIK S. GONZALES;

and DOES 1-20 inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C09-02518 HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re: Docket No. 32]

Plaintiffs filed the instant action in this court, asserting federal question jurisdiction as to

their claims under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, and the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605. Several state law claims for relief were also asserted. 

Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint which continued to assert claims under

these two federal statutes, as well as several state law claims for relief. This court granted in

part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to

amend. Plaintiffs have now filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in which they have 

*E-FILED 04-21-2010*

Case 5:09-cv-02518-HRL Document 41 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

opted to drop all federal claims for relief. Thus, there is no longer any federal question

jurisdiction. Nor is there an apparent basis for diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, there is

also no basis upon which supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims could rest. See, e

g., Pintando v. Miami-Dade Housing Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2007). If the

court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, which is unopposed, is granted, and plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without

prejudice. The motion hearing set for April 27, 2010 is vacated. The clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 21, 2010

Case 5:09-cv-02518-HRL Document 41 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5:09-cv-02518-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Amy Louise Morse amorse@adorno.com, bslack@adorno.com

Imani Gandy igandy@adorno.com

John M. Sorich jsorich@adorno.com

Michael J.M. Brook mbrook@lanahan.com, bwarner@lanahan.com

Patricio Antonio Marquez pmarquez@adorno.com

Patrick A Cathcart pcathcart@adorno.com, lhernandez@adorno.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:09-cv-02518-HRL Document 41 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 3