Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01931-0/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----

JERDIE M. HARRIS,

NO. CIV. S-09-1931 FCD EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, PRO30 

FUNDING, CALIFORNIA

RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on the motions of 

(1) defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., California Reconveyance Company, 

et al. (Docket #13) and (2) Gold Coast Mortgage, Inc. and Lois J.

Snell (Docket #17) (collectively, “defendants”) to dismiss

plaintiff Jerdie M. Harris’ (“plaintiff”) first amended complaint

(“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1

On February 11, 2010, plaintiff filed oppositions to defendants’

Case 2:09-cv-01931-FCD-EFB Document 29 Filed 03/15/10 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 To date, plaintiff has not served Pro30 Funding, and it

has not joined in the motions or otherwise appeared in the

action.

2

motions, in which she opposed the dismissal of her state law

causes of action but agreed to the dismissal of the sole federal

claim alleged against defendants pursuant to the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). (Docket #19, 21.) 

Plaintiff separately filed on March 11, 2010, a statement

indicating she did not intend to pursue any federal claims for

relief against any named defendants; plaintiff’s FAC alleges a

RESPA and federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against a

non-moving defendant Pro30 Funding. (Docket #27)2

Based on plaintiff’s filings, 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 violation of the California Rosenthal Act, negligence,

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, wrongful

foreclosure and elder abuse in violation of California Welfare

and Institutions Code § 15600 et seq. (FAC, filed Oct. 16,

2009.) 

Case 2:09-cv-01931-FCD-EFB Document 29 Filed 03/15/10 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

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

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 complaint is therefore DISMISSED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: March 15, 2010

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01931-FCD-EFB Document 29 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 3