IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 23, 2009
ERICA VALENCIA, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS; COUNTRYWIDE BANK FSB; RECONTRUST COMPANY N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.; COUNTRYWIDE AND GEOFFREY MIYAO; DOES 1-1000, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion by Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ReconTrust Company, N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") of Plaintiff Erica Valencia ("Plaintiff") for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).*fn1
This dispute arises out a mortgage loan transaction that eventually led to the foreclosure of Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff alleges several causes action including: violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), violation of the California Rosenthal Act, Negligence, violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, violation of the California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Wrongful Foreclosure, and violation of California Civil Code § 1632.
Plaintiff's only federal claims are the allegations of TILA and RESPA violations. In regards to these claims, Plaintiff has filed a Statement of Non-Opposition and a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The Court notes that Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal is legally insufficient to properly dispose of the claims. ECASH Technologies, Inc. v. Guagliardo, 35 F. App'x. 498, 499 (9th Cir. 2002) (The voluntary dismissal rule "only applies to dismissals of all claims against a particular defendant, not to dismissals of less than all claims against that defendant.") Nonetheless, Plaintiff has made clear that she intends to abandon these claims, and the Court will regard them as discarded.
With only Plaintiff's state law claims remaining, this Court ceases to have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. There is no diversity jurisdiction,*fn2 and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state claims.
The Supreme Court has held, "When the balance of factors indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federal law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988). In deference to the rules of comity, this Court abstains from proceeding.
Thus, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants' Motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 15) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.