Kemp v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 05/06/10 ORDERING that the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plf's state law claims and those claims are DISMISSED w/o prejudice. This action shall be closed. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Defendants Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage 19 Corporation, H & R Block Mortgage Corporation, Howard Rudolph and 20 Kathi Aldridge filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended 21 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 22 amended complaint alleges seven claims under California law. 23 Plaintiff filed an opposition in which she states: 24 25 26 27 28
*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERRI KEMP, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, H & R BLOCK MORTGAGE CORPORATION, HOWARD RUDOLPH and KATHI ALDRIDGE, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:09-cv-01661-GEB-DAD ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS*

Plaintiff's second

Plaintiff requests the Court take notice that her Second Amended Complaint, the operative pleading, contains no federal causes of action. The remaining causes of action are

argument.

This matter is deemed to be suitable for decision without oral E.D. Cal. R. 230(g). 1

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

all state claims. Therefore, this court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims . . . . To avoid unnecessary usurpation of the Court's time and resources, as well as those of the parties, Plaintiff has no objection to the Court's dismissal without prejudice of this matter. (Pl.'s Opp'n 3:3-14.) Plaintiff's earlier complaints included federal claims, and jurisdiction over those claims was based on the existence of federal questions. Since the federal claims have been eliminated from

Plaintiff's second amended complaint, the Court decides whether it should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court "may

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim" when "all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" have been dismissed. This decision should be informed by the values of

economy, convenience, fairness and comity as delineated by the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1996). Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.

1997) (en banc). Comity weighs in favor of not exercising jurisdiction since state courts have the primary responsibility for developing and applying state law. See Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001 (stating that "in the

usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point towards declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims" (quotations and citation omitted)); Curiel v. Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc., No. S-09-3074 FCD/KJM, 2010 WL 729499, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2010) (stating "primary responsibility for developing and applying state law rests with the state courts" and declining to exercise supplemental 2

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

jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claims).

Further, none of

the remaining Gibbs factors favor retaining jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and those claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). action shall be closed. Dated: May 6, 2010 Accordingly, this

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

3