Burch v. GMAC Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 34

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REMAINING CLAIM IN FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION; DISMISSING SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; VACATING MAY 7, 2010 HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 16, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By order filed March 15, 2010, the Court granted in part, denied in part, and deferred ruling in part on the motions to dismiss filed, respectively, by defendant GMAC Mortgage, LLC and by defendant Paul Financial, LLC. Specifically, the Court (1) dismissed the First Cause of Action to the extent it was based on a failure to deliver material disclosures, (2) found the First Cause of Action was not subject to dismissal to the extent it was based on a failure to deliver two copies of a notice of the right to rescind, but construed defendants' motions to dismiss said claim as motions for summary judgment and deferred ruling thereon to afford plaintiff Lesli Burch the opportunity to file supplemental opposition no later than April 9, 2010, and (3) deferred ruling on whether the Second Cause of Action was subject to dismissal, pending the Court's determination as to whether a triable issue of fact exists with respect to the remaining claim in the First Cause v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC., and PAUL FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants / LESLI BURCH, Plaintiff, No. C-09-4214 MMC ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REMAINING CLAIM IN FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION; DISMISSING SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; VACATING MAY 7, 2010 HEARING United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 of Action. Plaintiff has failed to file supplemental opposition by the deadline set forth in the Court's March 15, 2010 order. Accordingly, no supplemental opposition having been filed, the Court finds it appropriate to vacate the hearing scheduled for May 7, 2010, and hereby rules on the deferred portions of defendants' motions, as follows. A. Remaining Claim In First Cause of Action For the reasons stated in the Court's order of March 15, 2010, the Court finds the evidence submitted by defendants is sufficient to create a presumption that Paul Financial, LLC delivered to plaintiff two copies of a notice informing her of her right to rescind the transaction. (See Order, filed March 15, 2010, at 3:22-5:7.) Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the remaining claim in the First Cause of Action. B. Second Cause of Action The Court's jurisdiction over the Second Cause of Action is supplemental in nature. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). Where a district court has granted summary judgment on the federal claims alleged by the plaintiff, the district court may properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. See Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, having considered the matter, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Second Cause of Action. Accordingly, the Second Cause of Action will be dismissed without prejudice. // // // // // // 2 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 Dated: April 16, 2010 For the reasons stated above: CONCLUSION 1. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on the remaining claim in the First Cause of Action are hereby GRANTED. 2. The Second Cause of Action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's refiling the Second Cause of Action in state court. The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 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?