IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 11, 2010
JOHN C. HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF,
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.; AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT; AHMSI DEFAULT SERVICES, INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; RAYMOND MCCOY; GURMIT SINGH; DOUGLAS TODD CECIL, AND DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S ) FEDERAL CLAIMS AND DECLINING EXERCISE OF SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE CLAIMS*fn1
On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the TILA and RESPA Causes of Action from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ["FAC"] and respectfully request[s] that these Causes of Action be dismissed without prejudice." (Non-Opp'n 1:22-2:1.) Therefore, Plaintiff's TILA and RESPA claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Since this dismissal terminates all federal claims in Plaintiff's FAC, the Court decides whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim" if "all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" have been dismissed. "While discretion to decline . . . supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the . . . values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity" as delineated by the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
"Since state courts have the primary responsibility to develop and apply state law, . . . the Gibbs values do not favor exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over [Plaintiff's] state claims . . . ." Anderson v. Countrywide Fin., No. 2:08-cv-01220-GEB-GGH, 2009 WL 3368444, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009); see also Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001 (stating that "in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point towards declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff's remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).