Ohlendorf v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, et al

Filing 52

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/22/10. The AHMSI defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within seven days of the issuance of this order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CRAIG OHLENDORF, NO. CIV. S-09-2081 LKK/EFB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE 14 SERVICING, et al., 15 16 17 Defendants. / On October 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, ORDER

18 which stated claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 19 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., ("TILA") the Real Estate Settlement

20 Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617, ("RESPA") and various state 21 laws. On March 31, 2010, the court issued an order on two motions 22 to dismiss. The court dismissed several of plaintiffs' claims 23 without prejudice, and with leave to amend. On April 28, 2010, 24 plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. In this complaint, 25 plaintiff did not plead any violations of federal law. 26 On May 5, 2010, defendant T.D. Service Company filed a motion 1

1 to dismiss the second amended complaint. T.D. Service Company 2 requested that this court retain supplemental jurisdiction over 3 plaintiff's state law claims because it considers plaintiff's 4 actions of "including federal statutory claims to get into federal 5 court, [and] then dropping them after adverse rulings" to be 6 improper gamesmanship and because litigation of these claims in 7 state court will cause unnecessary delay. Defendant T.D. Service 8 Company's Motion to Dismiss at 7-8, Dkt. No. 45. 9 On May 17, 2010, defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing,

10 Inc., AHMSI Default Services, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust 11 Company, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("AHMSI 12 Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss. This motion did not address 13 whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's 14 complaint. These defendants also did not address defendant T.D. 15 Service Company's request that the court retain supplemental

16 jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. 17 Accordingly, it appears that this case no longer presents a

18 federal question. If that is the case, the court will decline to 19 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 20 claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The AHMSI defendants are therefore 21 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within seven days of the issuance of this 22 order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject 23 matter jurisdiction. 24 25 26 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 22, 2010.