UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 17, 2012
SAEED KAHEN KASHANI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
GN MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT [Docket Nos. 11, 12]
Presently before the court are two Motions to Dismiss filed and joined by the various Defendants in this case ("Motions"). Having reviewed the parties' moving papers, the court grants the Motions in part, remands the case to state court, and adopts the following Order.
Plaintiffs originally filed their Complaint against Defendants in state court on April 3, 2012. Plaintiffs allege twenty-nine causes of action, including various federal claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), and Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"). All of Plaintiffs' claims stem from Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct in providing two home mortgage loans to Plaintiffs in August 2003 and January 2006, and then trying to foreclose on Plaintiffs' home starting in September 2010. Defendants removed Plaintiffs' action to this court on May 29, 2012, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
As Defendants explain in their Motions, all of Plaintiffs' federal
claims are barred by their respective statutes of limitations.
Critically, unlike some of Plaintiffs' state law causes of action,
Plaintiffs' federal claims are based entirely on Defendants' alleged
unlawful conduct in the origination of the two mortgage loans in 2003
and 2006 - more than six years before Plaintiffs filed this action.
Accordingly, each of Plaintiffs' federal claims is time-barred, and
the court therefore dismisses these claims with prejudice.*fn1
See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635(f), 1640(e) (one-year and three-year
statutes of limitations for TILA claims);
12 U.S.C. § 2614 (same for RESPA claims); 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (five-year maximum statute of limitations for FACTA claims).
Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs' federal claims, the court must decide whether to retain pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993-94 (9th Cir. 1991). In most cases, the balance of factors weighs against exercising such supplemental jurisdiction. Id. at 993. Such is the case here. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' various state law claims, and remands this case to state court.*fn2
For all of these reasons, the court hereby GRANTS in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, as to Plaintiffs' federal claims only. The court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, and therefore REMANDS this case to California state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.