Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02081-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG OHLENDORF,

NO. CIV. S-09-2081 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE O R D E R

SERVICING, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On October 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,

which stated claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., ("TILA") the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617, ("RESPA") and various state

laws. On March 31, 2010, the court issued an order on two motions

to dismiss. The court dismissed several of plaintiffs’ claims

without prejudice, and with leave to amend. On April 28, 2010,

plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. In this complaint,

plaintiff did not plead any violations of federal law. 

On May 5, 2010, defendant T.D. Service Company filed a motion

Case 2:09-cv-02081-LKK -EFB Document 52 Filed 06/22/10 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

2

to dismiss the second amended complaint. T.D. Service Company

requested that this court retain supplemental jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s state law claims because it considers plaintiff’s

actions of “including federal statutory claims to get into federal

court, [and] then dropping them after adverse rulings” to be

improper gamesmanship and because litigation of these claims in

state court will cause unnecessary delay. Defendant T.D. Service

Company’s Motion to Dismiss at 7-8, Dkt. No. 45. 

On May 17, 2010, defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing,

Inc., AHMSI Default Services, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust

Company, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“AHMSI

Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss. This motion did not address

whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

complaint. These defendants also did not address defendant T.D.

Service Company’s request that the court retain supplemental

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Accordingly, it appears that this case no longer presents a

federal question. If that is the case, the court will decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The AHMSI defendants are therefore

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within seven days of the issuance of this

order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02081-LKK -EFB Document 52 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2