Castaneda et al v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. et al

Filing 82

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 6/3/10 ORDERING pltf's Third Amended Complaint DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CASE CLOSED.(Carlos, K)

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 ----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Cesar and Suzzanne Castaneda filed this action against defendants Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. ("Saxon"), Novastar Mortgage, Inc. ("Novastar"), Quality Loan 1 CESAR CASTANEDA and SUZZANNE CASTANEDA, Plaintiffs, v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; SYNERGY FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT dba DIRECT LENDER; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE UNDER NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 2005-2 BY SAXON; MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; LOUIS LEON PACIFIC; MICHAEL TIMOSHUCK; IVETTE CAMPOS;, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. _____________________________/ NO. CIV. 2:09-1124 WBS KJN ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----

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

Service Corp. ("Quality Loan"), Synergy Financial Managment, d/b/a Direct Lender ("Synergy"), The New York Bank of Mellon, as successor Trustee under Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust 2005-2 by Saxon ("Mellon"), Louis Leon Pacific, Michael Timoshuck, and Ivette Campos, alleging various state and federal claims relating to a loan they obtained to refinance their home in Sacramento, California. (Docket No. 2.) Plaintiffs asserted that the basis

of this court's jurisdiction over the action was federal question jurisdiction, predicated on their claims for violations of the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617. (Docket No. 2.) After the court granted two motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend, (Docket Nos. 47, 66), plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on March 17, 2010, which no longer contains any federal causes of action. (Docket No. 69.) Plaintiffs do not oppose defendants Novastar

and Saxon and Mellon's motions to dismiss without prejudice on the grounds that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' pendant state law claims. (See 72, 79.) The defendants, however, ask the court to

retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims and dismiss plaintiff's TAC with prejudice. Nos. 71, 73.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . ." 2 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); (See Docket

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

see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[A] federal district court with power to hear state law claims has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, them under the conditions set out in § 1367(c)."). Factors for a court to

consider in deciding whether to dismiss supplemental state claims include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir. 1992). "[I]n the usual case in which federal law claims are

eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims." Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d

1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 1996) overruled on other grounds by Acri, 114 F.3d at 1000. While it has been over a year since plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in federal court, the case has yet to progress beyond the motion to dismiss stage. As none of the

parties have posed any extraordinary or unusual circumstances that would counsel against dismissal, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) as to the TAC's state law claims. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 3

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
1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice.1 DATED: June 3, 2010

28

moot.

Defendants' motions to dismiss are therefore denied as 4