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.

Darlene Bowland v. Vanda Karamehmedovic

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


June 28, 2011

DARLENE BOWLAND,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VANDA KARAMEHMEDOVIC, AN INDIVIDUAL; NEWCAL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;
WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A CORPORATION AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff first filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (successor by merger to Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly known as World Savings Bank, FSB) ("Wells Fargo") removed the complaint on the basis of a single federal 22 claim under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.). Following removal, Wells 23 Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Pursuant to party stipulation, Plaintiff's 24 opposition to the motion was due June 24, 2011.

On June 24, 2011, rather than filing an opposition to Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC does not assert a TILA claim, or any 27 other federal cause of action. All the claims in the FAC are based on California law. In this 28 situation, it is within the Court's discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, or not. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866-67 (2009); 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1367(c) ("The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim 3 under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .) ." The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the rest of Plaintiff's claims. Therefore, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for Santa Clara County. The hearing on the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, set for Sept. 1, 2011 is hereby VACATED. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110628

© 1992-2011 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.