Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05578/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05578-2/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 

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 09-5578 SBA 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter is presently before the Court on an Order to Show Cause (OSC) why the 

Court should not decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that 

remain in this action. There being no response to the OSC, and for the reasons that follow, the 

Court dismisses the instant action without prejudice to refiling in state court. 

I. BACKGROUND

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

entities and an individual, Vi Tuoung Nguyen. They allege that Defendants 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 causes of action. The Complaint predicated the Court’s original 

jurisdiction on the TILA and RESPA claims. Compl. ¶ 1. 

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

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In response, 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 

Case 4:09-cv-05578-SBA Document 23 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

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 

Court’s jurisdiction. Compare Compl. ¶ 1 with First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-4. 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 Plaintiffs and least one of the Defendants are 

residents of the same state. 

On March 11, 2010, the Court issued an Order to 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. Docket 22 at 2. The Court ordered Plaintiffs 

to respond to the Order within one week, and warned that they failure to do so may result in the 

imposition of sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of this action. Plaintiffs have not 

responded to the OSC. 

II. DISCUSSION

The First Amended Complaint does not present any federal law claims. As the party 

invoking this Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have the authority to predicate their action solely 

on state law. 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.’”) (quoting in part Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 

208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000)). When all federal causes of action have been dismissed 

and no other basis for original jurisdiction exists, or when an amended complaint does not 

present a federal question, the district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction 

over the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1447(c); 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)) (en banc). 

In deciding whether to retain jurisdiction under these circumstances, a district court’s 

discretion is informed by considerations “of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” 

Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001. Here, these factors weigh in favor of dismissing the action and 

allowing Plaintiffs to instead proceed in state court. The instant case remains in the pleading 

Case 4:09-cv-05578-SBA Document 23 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

phase; discovery has not yet commenced and no dates have been scheduled. Where 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.”). In addition, Plaintiffs have 

evinced no objection to the Court’s dismissal of the action without prejudice to allowing them 

to proceed with their causes of action in state court.1

 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to refiling in state court. Each side shall bear its own fees and costs. Nothing in 

this order shall be construed as having any preclusive effect in a subsequently-filed state court 

action. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters in this action. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2010 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

 1The OSC warned Plaintiffs that the failure to respond to the OSC would be deemed 

grounds for dismissal. In light of that admonition, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ lack of 

response as a consent to the dismissal of this action. 

Case 4:09-cv-05578-SBA Document 23 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 3