Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00106/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00106-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN V. LOBATO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA FKA COUNTRYWIDE,

CITIBANK, N.A., AMERICA’S WHOLESALE

LENDER, CITIBANK (WEST), FSB,

RECONSTRUCT COMPANY, N.A., THE

BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR

THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS WALT, INC.,

ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-9TI

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-9TI,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEM, INC., NETWORK FINANCIAL

SERVICES MORTGAGE, TUNG T. NGUYEN,

GLENN ARTHUR MENDELL, DEREK JOHN

MILLER, SERGIO ANGELES, and DOES 1–20,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-00106 WHA

ORDER TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Martin Lobato brought this action against numerous defendants relating to his

home loan, federal-question jurisdiction being based on alleged violations of the Truth in Lending

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2605 et

seq. Plaintiff also asserted California state law claims for (1) negligence; (2) breach of fiduciary

duty; (3) fraud; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

Case 3:10-cv-00106-WHA Document 23 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

dealing; (6) wrongful foreclosure; (7) violation of California Business and Professions Code; and

(8) violation of the California Rosenthal Act. 

Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Reconstruct

Company, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and the Bank of New York

noticed a motion to dismiss. In response, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to

defendants’ motion to dismiss and submitted a request to dismiss his federal claims without

prejudice. Plaintiff additionally requested that this Court decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice, or alternatively grant

plaintiff leave to amend. In the reply, defendants requested leave to file a motion for attorney’s

fees. 

Following the statement of non-opposition, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in

which the original federal claims have been removed. Days before the hearing for the instant

motion, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint to be heard on

June 17, 2010. 

Within the statutory time frame, a party may amend its pleading once “as a matter of

course.” FRCP 15(a)(1). Rule 15(a)(1) provides that:

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is

required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or

21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or

(f), whichever is earlier. 

Defendants have not yet filed an answer, but they filed their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on March 15, 2010 (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff filed his statement of

non-opposition and first amended complaint within the time required by the rule, on April 5, 2010

(Dkt. Nos. 15, 16). Plaintiff therefore may amend his complaint as a matter of course. 

The first amended complaint contains only the remaining state law claims. As plaintiff

does not oppose the dismissal of the federal claims, those claims are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. In light of the amended complaint, plaintiff’s state law claims remain. As to those

claims, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint will be heard on June 17. 

Case 3:10-cv-00106-WHA Document 23 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Without suggestion that such a motion would or would not be approved, defendants’

requested leave to file a motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00106-WHA Document 23 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3