Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01939/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01939-3/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 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. dba America’s Servicing Co. 

(“Wells Fargo”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

Inc. (“MERS”). This Court grants Defendant NDex West, LLC’s 

(“NDex West’s”) Joinder to the aforementioned Motion to Dismiss. 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-01939-JAM -KJM Document 52 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

Defendants Wells Fargo, MERS and NDex West (collectively 

“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 upon which 

relief can be granted. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.1 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleged six causes of action 

against Defendants: one federal claim for violation of the Real 

Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (“RESPA”) 12 U.S.C. §2605 

et seq., and five state law claims. After the motion to dismiss 

was filed, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, the RESPA 

claim against Defendants. Accordingly, the only claims 

remaining against Defendants are state law claims over which the 

Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. (“If the 

federal claims are dismissed before trial...the state law claims 

should be dismissed as well.” Wheeler v. Payless Towing, 2010 WL 

148714 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010 (quoting United Mine 

Workers of Amer. V. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). These five 

claims are dismissed without prejudice to re-file in state 

court. 

 

1 The motion was 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 52 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

ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that the 

Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice as to the RESPA 

claim and GRANTED without prejudice as to the remaining five 

state law claims. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2010 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-01939-JAM -KJM Document 52 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 3