Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03489/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03489-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN GAGE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AT HOME CAPITAL. et al,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-3489 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL

CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM AND DISMISSING

REMAINING CLAIMS FOR LACK

OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the

pleadings. Plaintiff’s counsel conceded at the hearing that the claim asserted under TILA is

time-barred. It is therefore dismissed. The sole remaining federal claims, under 12 U.S.C.

§ 2601 and 15 U.S.C. § 1691, are also dismissed. As for 15 U.S.C. § 1691, the Equal Credit

Opportunity Act, Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated this statutory provision by

failing to make Plaintiff’s credit scores available to her. However, the cited section concerns

discrimination and has nothing to do with credit scores. The Complaint therefore fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Similarly, with regard to the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., the Complaint suggests that

Defendants are liable under for failing to disclose the existence of a contract between the

lender and the broker. The cited sections, however, do not provide for any relief for such a

failure. Plaintiff therefore entirely fails to state a claim under RESPA. Plaintiffs counsel 

Case 3:09-cv-03489-CRB Document 69 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2009\3489\Order Dismissing.wpd 2

gave no indication at the hearing that an amendment could possibly cure these failures.

The federal claims are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, leaving only a

variety of state law claims. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and

therefore DISMISSES those claims as well. If Plaintiff wishes, he may pursue relief on state

causes of action in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03489-CRB Document 69 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2