Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00006/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00006-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

NO. C 10-00006 RS

ORDER

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 03/29/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

HECTOR SANCHEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITI MORTGAGE, INC.; BANK OF 

AMERICA, f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME 

LOANS; FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION; HOME MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION; GARY MCDONALD; 

and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-00006 RS 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 Plaintiff Hector Sanchez filed a complaint in this Court on January 4, 2010. Defendant Citi 

Mortgage, Inc. (“CMI”) has moved to dismiss the complaint’s second, third, fourth, sixth, and 

seventh claims, and also to strike portions of the complaint. These motions are scheduled to be 

heard in this Court on April 15, 2010. 

 On March 26, 2010, Sanchez filed a statement of non-opposition, indicating that he does not 

oppose the motion to dismiss insofar as it pertains to his fourth claim, which arises under the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq. He requests that this claim be 

Case 3:10-cv-00006-RS Document 28 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 10-00006 RS 

ORDER

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

dismissed, along with his first claim, which arises under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 

et seq. His statement of non-opposition further acknowledges that, once the TILA and RESPA 

claims are no longer part of the complaint, “there is no proper basis for federal jurisdiction over the 

remaining issues.” Separately, also on March 26, 2010, Sanchez filed a pleading entitled “Motion 

for Leave to File First Amended Complaint,” which stated that “Plaintiff . . . requests an Order of 

Dismissal, Without Prejudice, of all claims as to all Defendants.”1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an 

action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves 

either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” The rule further states, “Unless the notice . . . 

states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, Sanchez 

has represented that there is no federal jurisdiction over his case and requests dismissal without 

prejudice. As the case meets the requirements of Rule 41(a), such dismissal is appropriate. The 

case is therefore dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. The Clerk shall take the pending 

motions off calendar and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 03/29/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 The pleading requests, in the alternative, leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). As the 

Court is granting the motion to dismiss, the alternative request will not be addressed. 

Case 3:10-cv-00006-RS Document 28 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2