Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00607/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00607-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

YASMIN SMITH,

Civ. No. S-09-607 FCD/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, BANK

OF AMERICA HOME LOANS,

COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB,

RECONTRUST COMPANY, MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC., DEBRA DELGADO,

and DOES 1-20 inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on the motion of defendants

Countrywide Bank, NA, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., BAC Home Loans Servicing,

L.P., and Bank of America, N.A. to dismiss plaintiff Yasmin

Smith’s (“plaintiff”) second amended complaint pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6). On February

23, 2010, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motions to

Case 2:09-cv-00607-FCD-KJM Document 37 Filed 03/02/10 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

1 Under the heading “Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action

for Violation of TILA,” plaintiff states that she does not oppose

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the RESPA Cause of Action.” Later,

plaintiff uses the same language under the heading “Fourth Cause

of Action for Violation of RESPA.” The court interprets the

first statement, as well as the lack of any argument relating to

the TILA claim, as a non-opposition to defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s TILA claim. 

2

dismiss, which included a statement of non-opposition to

dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Truth in Lending Act

(“TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”).1

 (Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Dismiss, filed Feb. 23, 2010,

8:16-19, 12:8-11.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s TILA and RESPA

claims are dismissed. See, e.g. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a);

Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (defendant’s

filing of a motion to dismiss, pursuant to FRCP 12(b), does not

prevent the plaintiff from later filing a voluntary dismissal). 

Dismissal of the TILA and RESPA claims leaves the complaint

devoid of any federal claims. The remaining claims are state law

claims for negligence, violation of the California Rosenthal Act,

breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of California Business

and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., breach of contract, breach

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

wrongful foreclosure. (Pl.’s Second Am. Compl. (“Compl.”).) 

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 Associates, Inc., 114

F.3d 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

Case 2:09-cv-00607-FCD-KJM Document 37 Filed 03/02/10 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

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) (“[I]n the usual case in which

federal-law 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 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining

state law claims.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 2, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00607-FCD-KJM Document 37 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 3