Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01739/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01739-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK HUESTIS and DIANE HUESTIS, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:09-cv-01739-GEB-DAD

)

v. ) ORDER

) 

INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK; HOME LOAN )

SERVICING; INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; )

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; )

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION )

SYSTEMS, INC.; ABSOLUTE LOANS, )

INC.; KEVIN DANIEL MCGILL, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On April 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court

to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over their case since

they are “unable to obtain further supporting facts” in support of

their Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

claims. Plaintiffs also request that the Court take judicial notice

of an amended complaint they seek desire to become the operative

complaint, which does not include a federal claim.

Plaintiffs request to dismiss their federal claims is

granted. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction no longer exists

and the Court may decide whether to continue to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See Acri v. Varian

Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Under 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise

Case 2:09-cv-01739-GEB-DAD Document 54 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 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

2

supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim” if “the district court

has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction 

. . . .” “While discretion to decline . . . supplemental jurisdiction

over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the

conditions in § 1367(c), it is 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 (1966). Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001. “Since state courts have the

primary responsibility to develop and apply state law, . . . the Gibbs

values do not favor continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction

over [Plaintiffs’] state claims . . . .” Anderson v. Countrywide

Fin., No. 2:08-cv-01220-GEB-GGH, 2009 WL 3368444, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

Oct. 19, 2009); see also 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)). Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims are

dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

This case shall be closed.

Dated: April 9, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-01739-GEB-DAD Document 54 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2