Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05578/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05578-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SERGIO RAMIREZ AND VERONICA 

RAMIREZ, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS; 

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.; 

WESTPORT CORPORATION; VI TUONG 

NGUYEN and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-5570 SBA 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

DISMISSAL

 On November 29, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the instant action in this Court against various 

entities and an individual, Vi Tuoung Nguyen, alleging that they were defrauded them in 

connection with a mortgage on their property. The Complaint alleged federal claims under the 

Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), along 

with various state law claims. The Court had original jurisdiction over the federal claims, 28 

U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

 On January 20, 2010, certain Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In turn, on March 1, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a statement of 

non-opposition in which they agreed to the dismissal of their TILA and RESPA claims, and 

simultaneously filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging only state law causes of action. 

Unlike the original Complaint, the First Amended Complaint does not articulate the basis of the 

Case 4:09-cv-05578-SBA Document 22 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

Court’s jurisdiction. Compare Compl. ¶ 1 with First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-4.1 Nor is the Court’s 

subject matter jurisdiction apparent from the face of the amended complaint. Diversity 

jurisdiction also is lacking, as it appears that Plaintiff and least one of the Defendants are 

residents of the same state. 

When the federal claims that served as the basis for the Court’s original jurisdiction are 

eliminated, either through dismissal by the court or by a plaintiff amending his or her 

complaint, federal courts may, in their discretion, decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction 

over the remaining state law causes of action and dismiss them without prejudice to refiling in 

state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (court may sua sponte exercise discretion and dismiss state law claims under 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Where, as here, the case is in its early stages, it generally is preferable for a 

federal court to decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. 

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351(1988) (“When the single federal-law claim in the action was 

eliminated at an early stage of the litigation, the District Court had a powerful reason to choose 

not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.”); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 

(9th Cir. 1991) (“it is generally preferable for a district court to remand remaining pendant 

claims to state court.”). Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs shall show cause why the Court should 

not decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the First Amended Complaint and dismiss 

the action without prejudice to refiling in state court. Plaintiffs shall respond to this Order in 

writing within one week of the date this Order is filed. Failure to timely respond to this Order 

may result in sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of this action. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March8, 2010 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

 1 It is Plaintiffs’ prerogative as to whether to press any federal claims in this suit. See

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (“the plaintiff is ‘the master 

of his complaint’ and may ‘avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law.’”) 

(citations omitted). 

Case 4:09-cv-05578-SBA Document 22 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2