Maria M. Gonzales v. First Franklin Loan Services et al

Filing 59

ORDER CLOSING CASE signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/15/2010. (Verduzco, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 On January 11, 2010, this court issued an order ("January 11 Order"), which dismissed 17 Plaintiff's Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA") claims against First Franklin Financial Corp. ("FFF") 18 without leave to amend. The January 11 Order also dismissed Plaintiff's RESPA claims against 19 Home Loan Services, Inc. ("HLS") with leave to amend The court permitted Plaintiff to file and 20 serve her amended complaint by January 26, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff complied with 21 the court's order and filed a Second-Amended Complaint. On April 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 22 notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) and dismissed without prejudice her 23 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") claims against("HLS") and Bank of America 24 ("BOA"). 25 The basis of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction was the presence of a federal 26 question. See First-Amended Complaint at ¶ 1. The Second-Amended Complaint, however, no 27 28 ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) FIRST FRANKLIN LOAN SERVICES, ) et. al, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ____________________________________) MARIA M. GONZALEZ, NO. 1:09-CV-941 AWI-GSA ORDER CLOSING CASE (Doc. Nos. 46, 48, 49) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

longer alleges any federal causes of action.1 In other words, Plaintiff has dropped all of her federal claims. All that remains in the active complaint are state law claims. See SecondAmended Complaint and Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Since the Second-Amended Complaint contains no federal claims, "there [are] no claims to which the state claims could be supplemental." Wellness Cmty. Nat'l v. Wellness House, 70 F.3d 46, 50 (7th Cir. 1995); see Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007). The Court no longer sees a basis for jurisdiction; therefore, dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. See Pintando, 501 F.3d at 1243-44; Wellness Cmty, 70 F.3d at 50; Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 506-08 (5th Cir. 1985); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Religious Tech. Ctr v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. This case is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court; and The Clerk shall CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 April 15, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

T h e court notes that there has never been any allegation of diversity jurisdiction.

2