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.

Tidwell v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 1, 2013

EDWARD C. TIDWELL, Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

On October 8, 2013, this Court granted two motions to dismiss - one filed by Defendants NRT, LLC and its subsidiary Valley of California, Inc. and one filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (on behalf of Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMC Specialty Mortgage LLC). (Dkt. No. 83). Specifically, the Court granted both motions, with prejudice, as to Plaintiff's Federal Insurance Deposit Act (Count 1) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Count 2) claims for failure to state a claim. ( Id. at 19). The Court then noted that to the extent its order eliminated all the federal claims in the case, it was "inclined to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims." ( Id. at 18). The Court based this latter determination on the "early nature of these proceedings and the fact that an adverse ruling against Plaintiff on related (and in places identical) state law claims is currently on appeal before the California Court of Appeals." ( Id. )

However, there were three defendants who did not join in either motion to dismiss - Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., Homesale, Inc., or Prommis Solutions, LLC. The Court noted that it was "unclear to what extent Plaintiff intended to assert his federal causes of action or on what basis such a claim would be based. It appears to the Court that Plaintiff only intended to assert his two federal causes of action against the Chase Defendants and Coldwell Banker." ( Id. at 18). Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to whether he was attempting to assert his FDIA or RESPA claim against Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., Homesale, Inc., or Prommis Solutions, LLC. ( Id. at 19). Plaintiff's response to this order to show cause was due on October 25, 2013. ( Id. ) Plaintiff has not responded.

The Court can find no indication in Plaintiff's complaint that Plaintiff intended to assert any federal causes of action against Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., Homesale, Inc., or Prommis Solutions, LLC. The Court's October 8, 2013 order therefore disposed of all federal claims raised in this action. In light of this fact, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims against the remaining defendants, and dismissed them without prejudice, for the reasons stated in its October 8, 2013 order. See S. Cal. Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 36 v. Rodin & Co., 558 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) ("Because the district court appropriately dismissed all of the federal claims, it acted within its discretion in declining to resolve the state law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction."); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of facts... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.'" (quoting Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988))). These claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED. This dismissal is with prejudice as to Plaintiff's first and second cause of action against the Chase Defendants (JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Home Finance LLC, JPMC Specialty Mortgage LLC) and as to all claims against the Coldwell Banker defendants, Valley of California, Inc. and NRT, LLC.[1] All state law claims against the Chase Defendants, Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., Homesale, Inc., or Prommis Solutions, LLC are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1367(c)(3).

Defendant Homesale, Inc.'s motion to set aside default filed on September 30, 2013, is DENIED as moot.

The parties shall bear their own costs. See Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing a district court may deny a prevailing party costs where the losing party has "limited financial resources").

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this 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.