Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03583/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03583-3/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 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C 09-3583 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed 4/9/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RITO CHAVEZ and RAQUEL CHAVEZ,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 09-3583 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 1

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[re: document no. 32 ]

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to

dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”) for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. On January 7, 2010, the Court granted, with leave amend Defendant’s

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleged violations of

the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and related claims. However, the operative

pleading presently before the Court – the SAC – alleges no federal claims. Plaintiffs have noted

in their opposition to the instant motion to dismiss that the remaining claims for relief all arise

under state law. Pls.’ Opp’n to MTD SAC 1:26-28.

Case 5:09-cv-03583-JF Document 42 Filed 04/09/10 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

2

Case No. C 09-3583 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFEX2)

Without any federal claims present, the Court declines at this juncture to exercise its

supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); ACRI v. Varian

Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “unless ‘values of judicial

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’ would be served, the district court rarely should

exercise supplemental jurisdiction when remaining claims are based wholly on state law)

(quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Accordingly, the Court

will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

ORDER

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED without prejudice.

DATED: April 7, 2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-03583-JF Document 42 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2