Huestis et al v. Indymac Federal Bank et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 4/9/2010 ORDERING 45 Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28:1367(c)(3). This case shall be CLOSED. (Reader, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 granted. v. INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK; HOME LOAN SERVICING; INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; ABSOLUTE LOANS, INC.; KEVIN DANIEL MCGILL, MARK HUESTIS and DIANE HUESTIS, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2:09-cv-01739-GEB-DAD ORDER

On April 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over their case since they are "unable to obtain further supporting facts" in support of their Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claims. Plaintiffs also request that the Court take judicial notice

of an amended complaint they seek desire to become the operative complaint, which does not include a federal claim. Plaintiffs request to dismiss their federal claims is Therefore, federal question jurisdiction no longer exists

and the Court may decide whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. See Acri v. Varian Under 28

Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court "may decline to exercise

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

supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim" if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . ." "While discretion to decline . . . supplemental jurisdiction

over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is 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 (1966). Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001. "Since state courts have the

primary responsibility to develop and apply state law, . . . the Gibbs values do not favor continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over [Plaintiffs'] state claims . . . ." Anderson v. Countrywide

Fin., No. 2:08-cv-01220-GEB-GGH, 2009 WL 3368444, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2009); see also 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)). Therefore, Plaintiff's state law claims are

dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This case shall be closed. April 9, 2010

Dated:

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2