Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00744/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00744-3/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

KAREN GARDNER, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:09-cv-0744-GEB-EFB

)

v. ) ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL

) JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT*

INC.; AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT; )

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )

COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN )

HOME MORTGAGE ASSETS TRUST 2007- )

MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH )

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-I; T.D. )

SERVICE COMPANY; AHMSI DEFAULT )

SERVICES, INC.; MORTGAGE )

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, )

INC.; CYPRESS MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.;)

THEODORE L. FOWLER; STEVEN JAMES )

SAMUELSON, and VELMA WILSON, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant T.D. Service Company seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s

second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants American

Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“American Home”) and AHMSI Default

Case 2:09-cv-00744-GEB-EFB Document 58 Filed 04/07/10 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

Services (“AHMSI”) also have filed a motion seeking to dismiss

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1), or alternatively, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges

eight claims under California law. Plaintiff filed a “Statement of

Non-Opposition” to each of the pending dismissal motions. 

In her Statement of Non-Opposition to American Home and

AHMSI’s dismissal motion, Plaintiff states:

[Plaintiff] does not oppose Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint due to

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff had

alleged causes of action of violations of both TILA

and RESPA in the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs [sic] request the Court take notice that

their [sic] Second Amended Complaint, the operative

pleading, contains no federal causes of action.

The remaining causes of action are all state

claims. Therefore, this Court may decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law

claims and choose to not consider Defendants’

arguments on the remaining state law claims . . . .

To avoid unnecessary usurpation of the Court’s time

and resources, as well as those of the parties,

Plaintiffs [sic] have no objection to the Court’s

dismissal without prejudice of this matter. The

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Second

Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety

without prejudice.

(Statement of Non-Opposition to American Home and AHMSI’s Mot. to

Dismiss 1:25-2:15.)

Plaintiff’s Statement of Non-Opposition appears to request

that the court decline to continue exercising supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims under 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law]

claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it

has original jurisdiction . . . .” The decision to decline

Case 2:09-cv-00744-GEB-EFB Document 58 Filed 04/07/10 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

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

reytaining 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.

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

Plaintiff’s state claims are dismissed without prejudice. 

Accordingly, this case shall be closed.

Dated: April 6, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-00744-GEB-EFB Document 58 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 3