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.

Motsenbocker v. Wachovia Mortgage

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 18, 2010

DAVID MOTSENBOCKER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST PREJUDICE

(Doc. 21)

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 28, 2009, David Motsenbocker and Cheryl Motesenbocker ("Plaintiffs") filed this action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq., in addition to various state law claims. (Doc. 1, Original Complaint). Defendants Wachovia Mortgage, World Savings Bank, FSB, Global Equity Lending, Inc., and Danny Hockenberger ("Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss the original complaint and Motion to Strike various allegations on November 25, 2009. (Doc. 7).

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") on February 15, 2010. (Doc. 12). The FAC abandons the federal claims stated in the original complaint. (FAC at 1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC and motion to strike certain allegations from the FAC on March 1, 2010. (Docs. 14, 15). Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to strike on May 3, 2010. (Doc. 20).

Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the FAC for lack of jurisdiction on May 3, 2010. (Doc. 21).

II. Discussion

When the federal claims that served as the basis for the Court's original jurisdiction are eliminated, federal courts may, in their discretion, decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action, and dismiss them without prejudice to refiling in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). It generally is preferable for a federal court to decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction where basis for federal jurisdiction is eliminated during early stages of the litigation. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988).

Here, Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint that abandons the federal causes of action initially pled in the original complaint. Under well settled Ninth Circuit precedent, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate in this case, as there is no longer any basis for federal jurisdiction. See id. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, without prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to strike are MOOT.

Order

For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's first amended complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice; and

2) Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100518

© 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.