Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02540/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02540-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 

---

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 Moving defendants are Aurora Loan Services LLC,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Pelletier

Finance, Inc., dba Delta Mortgage & Real Estate, Jeffrey Alan

Pelletier, Jeffrey Paul Olson, Jeffrey Bryan Delora, and

Homecomings Financial, LLC.

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders these matters submitted on the

briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PATRICK OSEI,

NO. CIV. S-09-2540 FCD/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AURORA LOAN SERVICES;

HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL;

LIBERTY AMERICAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants’1 various

motions to dismiss and to strike plaintiff Patrick Osei’s

(“plaintiff”) first amended complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).2 (Docket #s 21-24, 26.) On

Case 2:09-cv-02540-FCD-DAD Document 46 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 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

3 To date, plaintiff has not served Liberty, and it has

not joined in the motions or otherwise appeared in the action.

2

February 24 and 25, 2010, plaintiff filed oppositions to

defendants’ motions, in which she opposed the dismissal of her

state law causes of action but agreed to the dismissal of the

sole federal claim alleged against defendants pursuant to the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). (Docket #s 28,

30, 31, 33.) Plaintiff also filed on February 24, statements of

non-opposition to the motions, specifically requesting the court

dismiss his RESPA claim against the moving defendants. (Docket #s

29, 32.) He separately filed on March 11, 2010, a statement

indicating he did not intend to pursue any federal claims for

relief against any named defendants; plaintiff’s FAC alleges a

RESPA and federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against a

non-moving defendant Liberty Mortgage Coporation (“Liberty”). 

(Docket #44)3

Based on plaintiff’s filings, the court dismisses the RESPA

and TILA claims asserted in the FAC. See, e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a); Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (a

defendant’s filing of a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule

12(b), does not prevent the plaintiff from later filing a

voluntary dismissal).

Dismissal of the RESPA and TILA claims leaves the complaint

devoid of any federal claims. The remaining claims are state law

claims for violation of the California Rosenthal Act, negligence,

breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of California Business

and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., breach of contract, and

Case 2:09-cv-02540-FCD-DAD Document 46 Filed 03/15/10 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

3

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

(FAC, filed Nov. 11, 2009.) 

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. See Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d

999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The court’s decision

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed

by values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Id.

at 1001 (citations omitted). Further, primary responsibility for

developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. 

Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated before trial,

district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,

350 (1988); Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d

1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“In the usual case in which federallaw claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors 

. . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over

the remaining state law claims.”) (quoting Schneider v. TRW Inc.,

938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991)). In accordance with Section

1367(c), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is therefore DISMISSED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: March 12, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-02540-FCD-DAD Document 46 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 3