Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03131/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03131-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

DANIEL LOURIM,

NO. CIV. S-09-3131 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, 

F.A., GEORGE SANDERS; and

DOES 1-20, inclusive, O R D E R

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 4, 2009

bringing nine claims against three defendants arising out of the

refinancing of his home mortgage. Two of his claims were based on

federal statutes. The remaining claims all arise under state law.

On December 21, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the

amended complaint. On February 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a statement

of non-opposition to dismissal of his claims under the federal law,

the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s TILA and RESPA

Case 2:09-cv-03131-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 02/26/10 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

claims are dismissed. For the reasons described below, the court

remands this case to state court.

Dismissal of the TILA and RESPA claims leaves the complaint

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

claims for violation of the California Rosenthal Act, negligence,

breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violations of California’s Unfair

Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Pl.’s First Am. Compl.

(“FAC”).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), district courts shall remand a

removed case “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Here,

parties are not diverse under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and all claims that

arise under federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 have been dismissed.

Accordingly, no claims survive for which this court has original

jurisdiction.

The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

state law claims prior to the dismissal of his federal claims.

Under 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 developing and applying state law rests with the

state courts. Therefore, where federal claims are eliminated before

Case 2:09-cv-03131-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 02/26/10 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

trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484

U.S. 343, 351 (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

fators . . . 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, and

therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s claims.

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders that plaintiff’s

complaint is REMANDED to state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03131-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 3