The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge
1) REMANDING THIS SUPERIOR COURT
2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT (Doc. No. 7.) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOOT (Doc. No. 8.) LAWSUIT TO SAN DIEGO MOTION TO REMAND AS
On June 10, 2010, Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, and ReconTrust Company, N.A. ("Defendants") moved to dismiss Plaintiff Juan Camacho's ("Plaintiff") complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In reviewing that motion, the Court discovered that it no longer possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
For the reasons stated below, the Court REMANDS this case to San Diego Superior Court.
Plaintiff, along with his wife, is an equitable owner of a property located at 304 Cananea Street, Vista, California 92084. (the "Property") Defendants are a collection of financial institutions that have been, or are currently, involved with the mortgage on the Property.
On or about September 10, 2004, Plaintiff refinanced the mortgage on the Property with an adjustable rate mortgage ("ARM"). At some point, Plaintiff began having difficulty making payments on his mortgage. Plaintiff asserts that he is in imminent danger of losing the Property in a foreclosure proceeding.
On February 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 9, 2010, Defendants removed the action to this Court and then filed a motion to dismiss. (Id., Doc. No. 4.)
On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 5.) In response, the Court denied the pending motion to dismiss as moot. (Doc. No. 6.) On June 10, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Doc. No. 7.)
Defendants motion was set to be heard July 26, 2010. On July 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this lawsuit to San Diego Superior Court. That motion was set to be heard August 16, 2010. (Doc. No. 8.)
This lawsuit was properly removed from state court due to the claims arising under federal laws. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 5.) As mentioned above, Plaintiff has since filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The pending motion to dismiss caused the Court to review the FAC. The FAC does not include any federal causes of action. (See also Doc. No. 7 at 3 (where Defendants explain that Plaintiff has dismissed his claims involving the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA")). As a result, this Court no longer possesses original jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
A district court has discretion as to whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court does not believe exercising supplemental jurisdiction is ...