Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01939/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01939-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KIMBERLY THOMAS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. dba 

AMERICA’S SERVICING CO.; FIRST 

FRANKLIN, a division of 

NATIONAL CITY BANK; NDEX WEST, 

LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; 

MICHAEL DRAKE HOLDINGS, INC. 

dba DRAKE MORTGAGE; MICHAEL D. 

DRAKE; and DOES 1-20 inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

 

Case No. 2:09-CV-01939-JAM-KJM 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS 

This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss 

by Defendants Drake Mortgage and Michael D. Drake 

(“Defendants”). Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff Kimberly 

Thomas’ (“Plaintiff’s”) Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-01939-JAM -KJM Document 50 Filed 02/09/10 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

upon which relief can be granted. Defendants also brings a 

Motion to Strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(f). Plaintiff opposes the motions.1 

 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint brings six state law claims 

against Defendants, arising from a loan transaction. Defendants 

move to dismiss five of the claims. Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint also brought two federal causes of action against 

other parties, for violation of the Truth in Lending Act 

(“TILA”) 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement 

and Procedures Act (“RESPA”) 12 U.S.C. §2605 et seq. However, 

these federal causes of action were later voluntarily dismissed 

by Plaintiff. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, in any civil action in which 

the district court has original jurisdiction, the district court 

also has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the 

action which form part of the same Article III case or 

controversy. Wheeler v. Payless Towing, 2010 WL 148714 at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010). However, “if the federal claims are 

dismissed before trial. . . the state law claims should be 

dismissed as well.” Id. (quoting United Mine Workers of Amer. v. 

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Accordingly, with only state 

law claims alleged against Defendants, and no federal claims 

 

1 These motions were determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-01939-JAM -KJM Document 50 Filed 02/09/10 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

 

remaining in the underlying lawsuit, the Court declines to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the six state law claims 

against Defendants. 

III. ORDER 

 For the reasons set forth above, the federal TILA and RESPA 

claims are dismissed with prejudice and all six state law claims 

brought against Defendants are dismissed, without prejudice to 

re-file in state court.2 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2010 

2 Because the Court declines to take supplemental jurisdiction 

over all six state law claims, the Motion to Strike is moot.

3 

Case 2:09-cv-01939-JAM -KJM Document 50 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 3