Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02889/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02889-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

JORGE ROMERO and No. 2:09-cv-02889-MCE-DAD

LUCIA OROZCO,

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK;

CITIMORTGAGE; SECURITY

MORTGAGE FUNDING CORP.;

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.;

ONEWEST BANK, FSB; MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC.; HUONG LO; and

DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiffs Jorge Romero and

Lucia Orozco (“Plaintiffs”) seek monetary and injunctive relief

from Defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc. in its capacity as nominee/beneficiary

of Plaintiffs’ CitiMortage-administered Deed of Trust

(collectively “Defendants”) for a litany of state and federal

claims arising out of Plaintiffs’ financing of their home in

2006. 

Case 2:09-cv-02889-MCE -DAD Document 56 Filed 03/29/10 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 230(g). 

2

Presently before the Court is a Motion by Defendants to

Dismiss the claims alleged against them in Plaintiffs’ First

Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Additionally, Defendants move to strike portions of

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(f). 

1

As alleged against Defendants, Plaintiffs’ only federal

cause of action is for violation of the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605. However, Plaintiffs’

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss specifically concedes

this point and respectfully requests that the RESPA claim be

dismissed.

Plaintiffs are cautioned against filing a complaint in this

Court and then dismissing the federal claims as soon as a Motion

to Dismiss is filed. Nonetheless, with only state law claims

remaining, this Court ceases to have subject matter jurisdiction

over the Plaintiffs’ suit as alleged against Defendants. The

Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the

remaining state causes of action and they are dismissed without

prejudice. 

The Court need not address the merits of Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss (Docket No. 21) as those issues are now moot. 

Similarly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 23) is DENIED

as moot. 

Case 2:09-cv-02889-MCE -DAD Document 56 Filed 03/29/10 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

For the reasons stated above, the Court dismisses Defendants

CitiMortgage, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Inc. in its capacity as nominee/beneficiary of Plaintiffs’

CitiMortage-administered Deed of Trust. The suit brought against

Defendants is REMANDED to Superior Court of California, County of

Sacramento. The Clerk is directed to terminate the Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02889-MCE -DAD Document 56 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 3