Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01628-4/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 This matter is deemed to be suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO GAMEZ, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:09-CV-01628-GEB-EFB

)

v. ) ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL

) JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S

REGIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICE CORP.; ) STATE LAW CLAIMS*

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION )

SYSTEMS, INC.; JOHN MANUEL SANTOS, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,

Regional Trustee Service Corp. and John Santos have each filed motions

to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint alleges eight claims under California law. 

Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendant Santos’

dismissal motion, in which he states:

Plaintiff requests the Court take notice that

[his] Second Amended Complaint, the operative

pleading, contains no federal causes of

action. The remaining causes of action are

all state law claims. Therefore, this Court

may decline to exercise supplemental

Case 2:09-cv-01628-GEB-EFB Document 61 Filed 04/23/10 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

jurisdiction over state law claims and choose

to not consider the Defendants’ arguments on

the remaining state claims . . . . To avoid

unnecessary usurpation of the Court’s time and

resources, as well as those of the parties,

Plaintiff has no objection to the Court’s

dismissal without prejudice of this matter.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the

Second Amended Complaint be dismissed in its

entirety without prejudice.

(Pl.’s Statement of Non-Opp’n 1:24-2:11.)

The court has the discretion to decide whether it should

decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

alleged in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over a [state law] claim” when if “the district court has

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 

Here Plaintiff has elected not to pursue the federal claim alleged in

his original complaint. The decision whether to decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) should be

informed by the values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity as

delineated by the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of Am. v.

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1996). Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc.,

114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

Since state courts have the primary responsibility for

developing and applying state law, the Gibbs values do not favor

retaining jurisdiction in this case. See Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001

(stating that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are

eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point towards

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law

claims” (quotations and citation omitted)); Curiel v. Barclays Capital

Real Estate Inc., No. S-09-3074 FCD/KJM, 2010 WL 729499, at *1 (E.D.

Case 2:09-cv-01628-GEB-EFB Document 61 Filed 04/23/10 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

Cal. Mar. 2, 2010) (stating “primary responsibility for developing and

applying state law rests with the state courts” and declining to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal

claims); Anderson v. Countrywide Fin., No. 2:08-cv-01220-GEB-GGH, 2009

WL 3368444, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009) (finding that “the Gibbs

values do not favor continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction”

once all federal claims have been resolved). Therefore, the Court

declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the

state law claims alleged in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and 

those claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3). Therefore, this action shall be closed.

Dated: April 22, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-01628-GEB-EFB Document 61 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3