Hrim et al v. Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/26/2010 ORDERING that for the reasons stated above, the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close the file. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC; HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC.; PROFESSIONAL MORTGAGE BROKERS, INC. DBA VINTAGE MORTGAGE GROUP; LAURA E. RANEY; ROSLYN ROGERS; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. ----oo0oo---This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiffs Kevin Hrim and Marybeth Hrim ("Plaintiffs") financed their home in 2005. Presently before the Court is a MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KEVIN J. HRIM, and MARYBETH HRIM, No. 2:09-cv-02188-MCE-DAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Motion by Defendants Homecomings Financial LLC f/k/a Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("Defendants") to Dismiss the claims alleged against them in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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

Concurrently, Defendants Professional Mortgage Brokers Inc., dba Vintage Mortgage Group, Laura Raney, and Roslyn Rogers (also "Defendants") have similarly moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges only state law causes of action. Plaintiffs' Oppositions to the Motions to

Dismiss acknowledges the lack of a federal cause of action and requests that the Court take notice that the Second Amended Complaint contains no federal claims. Plaintiffs further state

that they have "no objection to the Court's dismissal without prejudice of this matter." 14. With only Plaintiffs' state law claims remaining, this Court ceases to have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. The Pls.' Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss 2:12-

Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state causes of action and they are dismissed without prejudice. The Court need not address the merits of Defendants'

Motions to Dismiss (Docket No. 50 and 51) as those issues are now moot.1 /// /// /// /// ///

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 2

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

Plaintiffs are cautioned against filing complaints in this Court and then dismissing the federal claims as soon as a Motion to Dismiss is filed. For the reasons stated above, the case is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2010

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3