Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02642/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02642-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

KRISTINE ROSE SANTOS

 No. 2:09-cv-02642-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, 

RESURGENT CORP. SERVICE,

RECONTRUST CO.; ARGENT 

MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC; U.S. 

BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;

MIROMA,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in

which Plaintiff Kristine Rose Santos (“Plaintiff”) financed her

home in 2006. Presently before the Court is a Motion by

Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and ReconTrust Company,

N.A. (“Defendants”) to Dismiss the claims alleged against them in

Plaintiff’s 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). 

Case 2:09-cv-02642-MCE -DAD Document 23 Filed 02/12/10 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

 The Court’s system reflects that a Notice of Electronic 1

Filing was generated at the time Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

was filed, and Plaintiff’s counsel is indicated as a recipient of

electronic service. 

2

Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition. Pursuant to

Local Rule 230(c), opposition to a motion must be filed not less

than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. The

date of the hearing on motion was set for February 12, 2010. 

Fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing was January 29, 2010. No

opposition was filed as required. 

Instead, on February 5, 2010 Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte

Application for Continuance and Remand. In so requesting,

Plaintiff’s counsel states that his failure to timely file an

opposition was allegedly due to never receiving service of

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and that it was not until

February 5, 2010 that counsel discovered said Motion on the

Court’s electronic filing system. 

However, counsel’s excuse for noncompliance is insufficient.

Pursuant Local Rule 135(a), by participating in the Court’s

electronic filing system, service on counsel is presumed upon the

electronic filing of a document. Counsel has evidenced his 1

understanding and use of the Court’s system, and accordingly he

must be bound by its terms. As such, the Court rejects counsel’s

reasons for failing to meet the deadlines of the Court and

admonishes him for noncompliance with Local Rule 230(c).

Nonetheless, despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s delinquency, the

Court cannot make light of its jurisdictional restraints.

Subsequent to removal of the case to federal court, Plaintiff

filed an Amended Complaint abandoning her federal claims. 

Case 2:09-cv-02642-MCE -DAD Document 23 Filed 02/12/10 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 2

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

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

3

With only Plaintiff’s state law claims remaining, there is no

federal subject matter jurisdiction over the suit and the Court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant

state claims. 

The case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. In light of the Court’s ruling, Defendants’

Motion (Docket No. 17) is DENIED as moot. 

2

The matter is REMANDED to Superior Court of California,

County of San Joaquin. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:09-cv-02642-MCE -DAD Document 23 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 3