Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03277/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03277-3/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

CONG MINH TRAN AND

PHUONG HUYNH,

NO. CIV. S-09-3277 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v.

O R D E R

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On March 1, 2010, the court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to

show cause for her failure to appear at the scheduled status

conference and to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition

to defendant JP Morgan Chase’s motion to dismiss. The court also

disregarded plaintiffs’ late filed amended complaint in which

plaintiffs no longer bring any federal claims. 

On March 8, 2010, plaintiffs’ counsel accepted responsibility

for the late filings and failure to appear, and sent the court a

check for $250, the amount indicated in the order to show cause.

Case 2:09-cv-03277-LKK -KJN Document 34 Filed 03/11/10 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

2

No good cause shown, the sanction of $250 is appropriate. However,

as discussed below, plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to file an

affidavit indicating that no client funds will be used to pay the

sanction.

Also on March 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed a statement of nonopposition to defendant JP Morgan Chase’s motion to dismiss as to

the federal claims and requested dismissal without prejudice.

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to their state law claims. Plaintiffs also filed a

motion for leave to filed their first amended complaint in which

they seek to bring no federal causes of action and the parties lack

diversity.

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. The sanction of $250, which plaintiffs’ counsel claims

has already been sent to the clerk of court, is

appropriate. Counsel, however, is further ordered to

file an affidavit which states that this sanction is

paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and

is not and will not be billed, directly or indirectly,

to the client or in any way made the responsibility of

the client as attorneys' fees or costs.

2. The court grants plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended

complaint, Doc. 30.

3. The court denies both pending motions to dismiss, Docs.

11, 26, without prejudice as moot.

////

Case 2:09-cv-03277-LKK -KJN Document 34 Filed 03/11/10 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

3

4. Accordingly, plaintiffs no longer bring any federal

claims, and therefore, this case no longer presents a

federal question. This court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff’s remaining

claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b),

dismissal of the state law claims does not operate as an

adjudication on the merits. 

5. The clerk of the court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03277-LKK -KJN Document 34 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 3