Kumar et al v. New Century Mortgage Corporation et al
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/18/2012 ADOPTING and AUGMENTING 10 Findings and Recommendations; DISMISSING, with prejudice, Plaintiffs' federal claims; CASE CLOSED; REMANDING Plaintiffs' state claims to Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to enter judgment on Plaintiffs' federal claims. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ASHWINI L. KUMAR, RAJENDRA
KUMAR,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
13
14
15
v.
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, RECONTRUST COMPANY,
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-00338-GEB-GGH
ORDER
16
On June 5, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and
17
recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which
18
contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations
19
were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 10.) No objections were
20
filed.
Accordingly, any findings of fact are presumed correct.
21
v.
See
United
The
22
Orand
States,
23
magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
24
v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
25
The portion of the Findings and Recommendations concerning
26
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal claims is ADOPTED and augmented as
27
follows.
28
federal claims, and since Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to Recontrust
Plaintiffs’
602
F.2d
conclusory
207,
208
allegations
1
(9th
fail
Cir.
to
1979).
See Britt
allege
viable
1
Company’s dismissal motion, and the Order to Show Cause filed May 15,
2
2012, convey they cannot allege viable federal claims, Plaintiffs’
3
federal claims are dismissed with prejudice.
4
In light of this dismissal, the issue is reached whether
5
supplemental
6
Plaintiffs’ state claims. “[P]endent [or supplemental] jurisdiction is
7
a doctrine of discretion, not of [a party’s] right.”
8
Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).
9
discretion to sua sponte “decid[e] whether to decline, or to retain,
10
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when any factor in [28
11
U.S.C.§ 1367(c)] is implicated[.]”
12
F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc).
13
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” pendent state claims if “the
14
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
15
jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “While discretion to decline to
16
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by
17
the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by
18
the Gibbs values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri,
19
114 F.3d at 1001.
20
jurisdiction
Judicial
economy
should
does
continue
being
exercised
over
United Mine
District courts have
Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114
not
A district court can “decline
favor
continuing
to
exercise
21
supplemental jurisdiction in this action since none of the state law
22
claims have been addressed on the merits. See Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d
23
337, 338 (9th Cir. 1986)(“The district court, of course, has the
24
discretion to determine whether its investment of judicial energy
25
justifies retention of jurisdiction or if it should more properly
26
dismiss the claims without prejudice.”)(internal citation omitted). Nor
27
do
28
supplemental jurisdiction since “[n]eedless decisions of state law
the
comity
and
fairness
factors
2
weigh
in
favor
of
exercising
1
should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice
2
between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of
3
applicable law.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726.
4
Since the Gibbs factors do not weigh in favor continued
5
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims,
6
Plaintiffs’ state claims are remanded to the Sacramento County Superior
7
Court in California. Further, the Clerk of Court shall entered judgment
8
on Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to this order.
9
Dated:
July 18, 2012
10
11
12
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?