Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miranda v. Bank of America FKA Countrywide Home Loans

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 16, 2010

LUPE MIRANDA AND ANGEL MIRANDA, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS; GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; ESTATE HOME LOANS, INC.; AHMED HERNANDEZ-CERVANTES, MARC ARIAS-MORALES; AND DOES 1-20 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 Defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding ("Defendant") to Dismiss the claims alleged against it in the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Lupe Miranda and Angel Miranda ("Plaintiffs") for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to a motion must be filed not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. The date of the hearing on motion was set for February 12, 2010. Fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing was January 29, 2010. No opposition was filed by January 29, 2010.

On February 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a general opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 31) as well as a specific Statement of Non-Opposition (Docket No. 30) to the Motion as it related to Counts 1 and 4. Although the opposition is untimely, the Court accepts the non-opposition to the dismissal of Counts 1 (Truth in Lending Act) and 4 (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) and said counts are dismissed with prejudice.

In light of the dismissal of Counts 1 and 4 which are the only causes of action which provided this Court with subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state causes of action and they are dismissed without prejudice. The Court need not address the untimeliness and/or the merits of the Motion to Dismiss or the Plaintiffs' opposition as that issue is now moot.

For the reasons stated above, the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100216

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.