Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02378/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02378-2/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

27

28

1 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----

PHILLIP CRUMP,

NO. CIV. S-09-2378 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT 

CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA

HOME LOANS; WMC MORTGAGE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on the motions of 

(1) defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (erroneously sued as

Bank of America Home Loans) and Recontrust Company, N.A. (Docket

#28) and (2) WMC Mortgage Corporation (Docket #26) (collectively,

“defendants”) to dismiss plaintiff Phillip Crump’s (“plaintiff”)

first amended complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6).1 On April 9, 2010, plaintiff filed

Case 2:09-cv-02378-FCD-GGH Document 35 Filed 04/14/10 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

2 In his FAC, plaintiff also named as defendants Franklin

Credit Management Corporation (“Franklin”), American Dreams

Homes, Therman Edwards and Victor Jenkins. He asserted a RESPA

claim against Franklin, who answered the FAC on February 19, 2010

(Docket #31). Plaintiff now requests dismissal of that claim

against Franklin. (Docket #33, 34.) It does not appear that

American Dreams Homes, Therman Edwards or Victor Jenkins have

been served, and they have not otherwise appeared in the action. 

No federal claims for relief are alleged against them in the FAC.

2

statements of non-opposition to defendants’ motions, in which he

requested dismissal of his federal claims for relief, pursuant to

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the Truth

in Lending Act (“TILA”), alleged against the moving defendants as

well as all other defendants.2

 (Docket #33, 34.)

Based on plaintiff’s statements, 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 fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,

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

negligence, violation of the California Rosenthal Act, violation

of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and

wrongful foreclosure. (FAC, filed January 18, 2010 [Docket

#19].) 

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

Case 2:09-cv-02378-FCD-GGH Document 35 Filed 04/14/10 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 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended

complaint to dismiss his federal claims for relief, noticed for

hearing on June 4, 2010, is HEREBY DENIED as MOOT.

3

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 FAC is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: April 13, 2010

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02378-FCD-GGH Document 35 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 3