Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02380/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02380-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BRYSON WEBB and YVONNE WEBB,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INDYMAC BANK HOME LOAN

SERVICING, INDYMAC FEDERAL

BANK, INDYMAC MORTGAGE

SERVICES, MTC FINANCIAL, INC.

d/b/a TRUSTEE CORPS., MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC., MTH MORTGAGE,

LLC, JOYCE S. PERKINS, and

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

NO. CIV. 2:09-2380 WBS DAD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Bryson Webb and Yvonne Webb filed this

action in federal court on August 25, 2009, against defendants

Indymac Bank Home Loan Servicing, Indymac Federal Bank, Indymac

Mortgage Services, MTC Financial, Inc. d/b/a/ Trustee Corps.,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), MTH

Case 2:09-cv-02380-WBS-DAD Document 54 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

Mortgage, LLC, and Joyce S. Perkins. (Docket No. 1.) The basis

of this court’s jurisdiction over the action was federal question

jurisdiction, predicated on their claims for violations of the

Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, and the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§

2601-2617. (Docket Nos. 1-2.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”) on January 26, 2010 that no longer asserted any

federal claims or referred to any federal statutes (Docket No.

41), and thereafter MTC Financial, Inc. and MERS filed motions to

dismiss (Docket Nos. 42, 45). On March 10, 2010, plaintiffs

filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to MERS’s motion to dismiss

(Docket No. 53), specifically noting that the SAC no longer

pleads any federal causes of action and asserting that the court

no longer has federal jurisdiction to hear the case. (Id.) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3), a district court may

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law

claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which

it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);

see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th

Cir. 1997) (“[A] federal district court with power to hear state

law claims has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, them under

the conditions set out in § 1367(c).”). Factors for a court to

consider in deciding whether to dismiss supplemental state claims

include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th

Cir. 1992). “[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

Case 2:09-cv-02380-WBS-DAD Document 54 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

state law claims.” Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d

1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 1996) overruled on other grounds by Acri,

114 F.3d at 1000. 

 As there do not appear to be any extraordinary or

unusual circumstances that would counsel against dismissal, the

court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under §

1367(c)(3) as to the Second Amended Complaint’s state law claims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions to

dismiss (Docket Nos. 42, 45) are hereby DENIED as moot.

DATED: March 12, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-02380-WBS-DAD Document 54 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 3