Saugstad v American Home Mortgage

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/25/11 ORDERING that the MOTION TO DISMISS 46 is DENIED. The Court is DISMISSING this CASE for lack of jurisdiction. This CASE is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

-EFB (TEMP) Saugstad v American Home Mortgage

Doc. 48

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 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSTEN E. SAUGSTAD,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ) SERVICING, INC.; UMOC LENDING, ) INC.; OPTION ONE MORTGAGE ) CORPORATION; DANIEL BROWN ) MORTGAGE DBA UMOC LENDING, INC.; ) DANIEL CHARLES BROWN; SONJA ) WINDIFRED GORMAN; and DOES 1-20, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. )

Case No. 2:09-CV-3516-JAM-EFB ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Sonja Windifred Gorman's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #46) Plaintiff Osten E. Saugstad's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") (Doc. #11). Defendant seeks dismissal of this matter for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of This motion was set for

non-opposition in response to the motion.

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

hearing on March 23, 2011, but ordered submitted on the briefs.1 Because Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC on March 12, 2010 (Doc. #20), the Court must deny the Motion to Dismiss. Even though

the motion was unopposed, nevertheless the Court cannot as a matter of law grant the motion (see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)). However, because only state law claims remain against Defendant (who is the only remaining defendant in this case), and application of federal law is not a substantial or necessary element of the claims, the Court is exercising its discretion to sua sponte dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Meza v.

Matrix Servicing, 2010 WL 366623, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2010). Accordingly, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. However, the Court is dismissing this case for lack of Accordingly, this case is dismissed without

jurisdiction. prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 25, 2011 ____________________________ JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 2