Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01916-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DAVID SHEPHERD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICES, INC.; AMERICAN

BROKERS CONDUIT; AHMSI DEFAULT

SERVICES, INC.; DEUTSCHE

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; TREE

HOUSE FINANCIAL MORTGAGE

COMPANY; RAME ALBERT BATTA;

NASRAT BATTA; and DOES 1-20

inclusive,

Defendants. /

NO. CIV. 2:09-1916 WBS GGH

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff David Shepherd filed this action on July 14,

2009, against defendants American Home Mortgage Services, Inc.

(“AHMSI”), American Brokers Conduit, AHMSI Default Services, Inc.

(“AHMSI Default Services”), Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), Deutsche National Trust Company

Case 2:09-cv-01916-WBS-GGH Document 46 Filed 02/03/10 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

(“Deutsche”), Tree House Financial Mortgage Company (“Tree

House”), and Rame Albert Batta. (Docket No. 1.) Federal

question jurisdiction was predicated on his plaintiff’s claim for

violations of the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§

1601-1667f. (Docket No. 2.) 

Plaintiff amended his initial Complaint once as of

right and submitted the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on

September 11, 2009. (Docket No. 15.) Plaintiff’s FAC alleged

violations of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617; the Rosenthal Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.1-

1788.33; and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210, as well as claims for

negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

and wrongful foreclosure. 

 MERS, AHMSI, and Deutsche then filed motions to

dismiss the FAC. The court granted these motions to dismiss

without prejudice. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on December 10, 2009, that no longer

asserts any federal claims. (Docket No. 43.) 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within ten days of the

date of this Order, the parties shall file briefs to show cause

why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c) in light of plaintiff’s dismissal of his federal claims

under RESPA and TILA.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on AHMSI and

Deutsche’s motion to dismiss is hereby continued to March 1,

Case 2:09-cv-01916-WBS-GGH Document 46 Filed 02/03/10 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

2010, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5.

DATED: February 2, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-01916-WBS-GGH Document 46 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3