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.

Chris Martinez and Gloria v. World Savings Inc. Dba World Savings Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 14, 2011

CHRIS MARTINEZ AND GLORIA
MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WORLD SAVINGS INC. DBA WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION; RON BROWN AND ASSOCIATES; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiffs originally filed this action in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging fraud, deceit, and negligence in connection with refinancing their home. On October 13, 2010, Defendants removed to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Specifically, jurisdiction was based on Plaintiffs' eleventh and twelfth causes of action in the original complaint which alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").

On October 8, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs did not file a timely opposition to the motion to dismiss. As a result, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which did not include the TILA and RESPA claims, or any other federal causes of action. Defendant now moves to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 17.)

Without considering the merits of Defendants' motion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claims, and remands the case to state court. A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been eliminated.*fn1 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). Further, when all such claims have been eliminated, the Court is duty-bound to sua sponte consider whether to exercise its discretion to decline or retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Acri, 114 F.3d at 101. A court should consider values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Id. at 1001.

Where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, courts should not normally exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Id. at 1000.

In the instant case, the FAC alleges only claims based on state law. At this early stage of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Based on the foregoing, the instant action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk is ordered to close the case.

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.