Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02535/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02535-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

BALJIT DOSANJH, SUKHINDER 

DOSANJH, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING; WELLS 

FARGO BANK, N.A.; QUALITY LOAN 

SERVICE, CORP., and DOES 1-50 

Inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

 

Case No. 2:09-CV-02535-JAM-DAD 

ORDER RE:MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

REMAND ORDER 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Litton Loan 

Servicing, LP’s,(“Defendant’s”), Motion to Dismiss, (Doc #25), 

Plaintiffs Baljit Dosanjh and Sukhinder Dosanjh’s 

(“Plaintiffs’”) Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #24) for failure 

to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-02535-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 3
12(b)(6). 1 Plaintiffs oppose the motion.2 The Court has taken 

Judicial Notice of all documents as requested by Defendant. 

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 case was removed from state court to federal court on 

the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ original 

complaint brought claims for relief for violation of the federal 

Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), along with supplemental state law 

claims. Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint twice, and 

it no longer contains any federal claims for relief. Federal 

claims for relief are named in the caption and the opening 

paragraph of the Complaint, but are not set forth as individual 

claims for relief in the body of the Complaint. 

 “Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over state law claims... In the usual case in which 

federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of 

factors will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction 

over the remaining state law claims.” Keen v. American Home 

Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 2010 WL 624306, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 

18, 2010) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, because no 

 

1

 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

2

The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ opposition appeared to be a 

boilerplate, cut and paste brief. Counsel failed to even name 

the correct plaintiffs in the case. 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-02535-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/23/10 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

federal claims remain in this action, the Court declines to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 

claims. 

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to 

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This 

case is hereby remanded to the Superior Court in and for the 

County of Sacramento. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 22, 2010 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-02535-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3