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.

Gomez v. Wachovia Mortgage FSB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 26, 2010

TARISCO GOMEZ AND FLORINDA GOMEZ, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB, 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 Plaintiffs Tarisco Gomez and Florinda Gomez ("Plaintiffs") refinanced their home in September 2005. Presently before the Court is a Motion by Defendant Wachovia Mortgage, FSB ("Defendant") to Dismiss the claims alleged against it in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Concurrently, Defendant moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b).

Defendant also filed a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f). Plaintiffs bring a Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint.*fn1

In Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege violations of both federal and state laws, including the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq. ("RESPA"). However, Plaintiffs have filed a Statement of Non-Opposition in which they do not oppose dismissal of their federal claims alleging violations of TILA and RESPA. Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend their First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) so as to remove both the TILA and RESPA Causes of Action. This Court need not address the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend because Plaintiffs' have already filed a Statement of Non-Opposition. Thus, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend (Docket No. 29) is moot.

With only Plaintiffs' 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 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24) as those issues are now moot. Additionally, the Motion to Strike (Docket No. 18) is moot.

For the reasons stated above, the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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.