Guldbeck et al v. BNC Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER REMANDING CASE. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 31, 2010, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not be remanded to San Mateo County superior court, as the amended complaint contains no federal claims. Doc #32. The deadline to respond to the court's order has See Doc ALEX GULDBECK and KIMBERLY A ANDERSON, Plaintiffs, v CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE SERVICES, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC; VORHEES VENTURES INC and DOES 1-100, Defendants. / No C 09-5733 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

passed, and no party has objected to the proposed remand. ##33, 36.

Because all federal claims have been dismissed, remand is appropriate. 28 USC § 1367(c)(3); see also Wren v Sletten

Construction Co, 654 F2d 529, 536 (9th Cir 1981) ("When the state

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

issues apparently predominate and all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the proper exercise of discretion requires dismissal of the state claims."). Accordingly, the action is hereby REMANDED The clerk is directed to

to San Mateo County superior court.

terminate all motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

2