Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01660/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01660-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GERALD ANUDOKEM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICING, INC.; E*TRADE BANK;

AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT;

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE A DIVISION

OF NATIONAL CITY BANK OF INDIANA;

T.D. SERVICE COMPANY; AHMSI

DEFAULT SERVICES; DEUTSCHE BANK

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS

TRUSTEE FOR HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE

LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-7;

CALIFORNIA HOME LOANS; TERRY W.

DAVIS; PETER RUA; and DOES 1-20

inclusive,

Defendant. /

No. C09-01660 HRL

ORDER (1) GRANTING T.D. SERVICE

COMPANY’S FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (2)

DEEMING MOOT PNC BANK’S AND

E*TRADE BANK’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

[Re: Docket Nos. 39, 41 and 42]

Plaintiff Gerald Anudokem filed the instant action in this court, asserting federal

question jurisdiction as to his claims under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 and the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605. Several state law claims for relief

were also asserted. Anudokem subsequently filed an amended complaint which continued to

assert claims under these two federal statutes, as well as several state law claims for relief. This

court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint,

*E-FILED 04-01-2010*

Case 5:09-cv-01660-HRL Document 45 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

 with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed a Second Amended Complaint in which he has

opted to drop all federal claims for relief. Thus, there is no longer any federal question

jurisdiction. Nor is there an apparent basis for diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, there is

also no basis upon which supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims could rest. See, e

g., Pintando v. Miami-Dade Housing Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Plaintiff agrees that there is no subject matter jurisdiction and does not oppose defendant T.D.

Service Company’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, but requests that the dismissal

be without prejudice. Accordingly, T.D. Service Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction is granted as unopposed. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without

prejudice. Defendant PNC Bank’s and E*Trade Bank’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss and motion to strike re Anudokem’s state law claims are deemed moot. The motion

hearing set for April 13, 2010 is vacated. The clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 1, 2010

Case 5:09-cv-01660-HRL Document 45 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:09-cv-01660-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Bruce William Dannemeyer bruce@dreyfusslaw.com, roma@dreyfusslaw.com

Jonathan G Stein jonathan@jonathangstein.com

Margaret Mary Broussard pegthelawyer@aol.com

Megan Elizabeth Gruber megruber@wolfewyman.com, tlbeardsley@wolfewyman.com

Stuart Bruce Wolfe sbwolfe@wolfewyman.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:09-cv-01660-HRL Document 45 Filed 04/01/10 Page 3 of 3