Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01943/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01943-2/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

ROBERT A. SORENSON, No. 2:09-cv-01943-MCE-KJN

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC.; GAILINA

CHEREDAYKO; COUNTRY WIDE BANK,

FSB; BANK OF AMERICA and DOES 1-

20, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in

which Plaintiff Robert A. Sorenson (“Plaintiff”) refinanced his

home in 2005. Presently before the Court is a Motion by

Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., Galina Cheredayko, Bank of America

Corporation, and Countrywide Bank, FSB (“Defendants”) to Dismiss

the claims alleged against them in Plaintiff’s 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-01943-MCE -KJN Document 43 Filed 04/27/10 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

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 filed a Motion to Strike portions of the

Second Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges only state law

causes of action. Plaintiff has also filed an Opposition in

which he does not oppose dismissal of his Second Amended

Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

With only Plaintiff’s 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’

Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 35) as those issues are now moot. 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 34) is also moot. 

1

Plaintiff is 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-01943-MCE -KJN Document 43 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2