Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01807/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01807-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALFRED D. DAVIS and KAREN C. 

DAVIS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE; WORLD 

SAVINGS BANK, FSB; FEDERAL 

SAVINGS BANK; BAM REALTY & 

LOANS; LOTTIE DELORIS MURRAY; 

CARLOS BARNES and DOES 1-20 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

 

Case No. 2:09-CV-01807-JAM-GGH

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Wachovia 

Mortgage’s, formerly known as World Savings Bank,(“Defendant’s”) 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Alfred D. Davis and Karen C. Davis’ 

(“Plaintiffs’”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), for failure to 

state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-01807-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 4
12(b)(6). Plaintiffs oppose the motion.1 Defendant also brings a 

Motion to Strike Portions of the FAC, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(f), which Plaintiffs oppose. For the 

reasons explained below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is 

GRANTED. 

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

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In July 2006, Plaintiffs obtained two loans: a “Pick-a-Pay” 

adjustable rate mortgage to refinance their residential property 

located at 108 Conductor Way, Folsom, CA (“subject property”) 

and an Equity Line of Credit. The terms of the loans were 

memorialized in two promissory Notes, which were secured by two 

Deeds of Trust on the subject property. The lender was World 

Savings Bank, renamed and now known as Wachovia. Plaintiffs 

allege that they did not receive required disclosures, that 

disclosures were not clear, and that the mortgage brokers (not 

parties to this motion), mislead them regarding the terms of the 

loan. 

Plaintiffs brought the present lawsuit alleging two federal 

causes of action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act 

(“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., and the Real Estate 

Settlement and Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §2605 et 

 

1 These motions were determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

2 

Case 2:09-cv-01807-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 4
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

seq., and seven state law causes of action. In Plaintiffs’ 

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs voluntarily 

dismissed, without prejudice, the federal TILA and RESPA claims 

against Defendant. All that remains for this Court to decide are 

the state law causes of action. 

II. Opinion

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, in any civil action in which 

the district court has original jurisdiction, the district court 

also has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the 

action which form part of the same case or controversy. Wheeler 

v. Payless Towing, 2010 WL 148714 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 

2010). However, “if the federal claims are dismissed before 

trial. . . the state law claims should be dismissed as well.” 

Id. (quoting United Mine Workers of Amer. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 

715, 726 (1966). 

In the present case, Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed 

all federal claims, leaving only state law claims. The Court 

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 

remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the seven state law 

causes of action are dismissed without prejudice to re-file in 

state court. 

 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-01807-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 4
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

III. ORDER

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. The federal TILA and RESPA claims 

against Defendant are dismissed, with prejudice. The seven state 

law claims are dismissed, without prejudice to re-file in state 

court. 2 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2010 

 

2 Because the Court is dismissing all federal claims with 

prejudice and declining to take jurisdiction over the state 

claims, the Motion to Strike is moot.

4 

Case 2:09-cv-01807-JAM-GGH Document 29 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 4