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.

Reyes v. Indymac Federal Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 26, 2010

JESS C. REYES PLAINTIFF,
v.
INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiff Jess Reyes ("Plaintiff") obtained a home loan in June 2006. Presently before the Court are Motions by Defendants MTC Financial, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") to Dismiss the claims alleged against them in Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Defendant MTC Financial, Inc. concurrently moves to strike portions of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f). Plaintiff has failed to timely file an opposition.*fn1

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 25, 2010. Fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing was February 11, 2010. No opposition was filed as required.

As a result of Plaintiff's counsel Sharon Lapin's repeated failure to comply with Local Rules, within ten (10) days from the date this Order is electronically filed, Lapin shall either (1) personally pay sanctions in the amount of $250.00 to the Clerk of the Court or (2) show good cause for the failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c).

However, this Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's late-filed First Amended Complaint. While Plaintiff's original Complaint alleged violations of both federal and state laws, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint abandons his federal claims.

With only Plaintiff's state law claims remaining, this Court ceases to have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state causes of action and they are dismissed without prejudice.

The Court need not address the merits of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 7, 10 and 13) as those issues are now moot.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.