Grossman v. JP Morgan Chase et al

Filing 20

Order Dismissing Case. Motion to Dismiss 13 is Denied as Moot. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 11/14/2012. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 14 ) Case No. 12-3532-SC ) ) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 15 On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff William H. Grossman ("Plaintiff") WILLIAM H. GROSSMAN, Plaintiff, 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 v. 11 12 JP MORGAN CHASE, et al., 13 Defendants. 16 filed (1) a complaint challenging the purportedly wrongful 17 foreclosure of his home and (2) an ex parte application for a 18 temporary restraining order that would cancel the foreclosure and 19 prevent his eviction from, or the sale of, his house. 20 ("Compl."); ECF No. 3 ("TRO App."). 21 trust and promissory note to the TRO application. 22 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's TRO application because he 23 failed to establish a compelling need to proceed ex parte. 24 12. 25 ECF No. 1 Plaintiff attached his deed of On July 24, ECF No. Plaintiff originally named Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ("Wells") as See Compl. On August 7, 2012, Wells 26 a defendant in this case. 27 filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 28 other defendant joined Wells's motion. ECF No. 13 ("Mot."). No Plaintiff did not file an 1 opposition (or, as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b), a notice of 2 nonopposition) and Wells did not file a reply. 3 the motion hearing, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Wells. 4 19. 5 defendant joined its motion. 6 moot. 7 Then, on the eve of ECF No. Wells is no longer a party to this action and no other The motion to dismiss is therefore Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. The Court observes, however, that Wells's motion had merit. 8 The complaint asserts ten causes of action, two of which are based 9 on federal law. Compl. ¶¶ 47-55 (asserting claims based on the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and Real Estate Settlement Procedure 11 Act ("RESPA")). 12 California state law, and rely on the Court's supplemental 13 jurisdiction. 14 as source of Court's original jurisdiction and invoking 15 supplemental jurisdiction for the remainder of Plaintiff's claims). 16 The Court concludes that Plaintiff's TILA and RESPA claims are 17 time-barred and, in the absence of a viable federal claim, the 18 Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 19 remaining state-law claims. 20 The other eight causes of action are based on See Compl. ¶¶ 2-3 (identifying TILA and RESPA claims 28 U.S.C. § 1361(c)(3). Though Plaintiff's complaint is conspicuously silent about 21 numerous material facts, including the date that Plaintiff closed 22 on his now-foreclosed loan, see Compl. at 5 (chronological 23 statement of case which omits dates), the deed of trust and note 24 submitted along with Plaintiff's TRO show that Plaintiff closed on 25 his loan on December 7, 2007 -- more than four years before 26 Plaintiff filed his complaint. 27 loan transaction closes and have a statute of limitations of either 28 one or three years, depending on the relief sought. TILA claims accrue on the date the 2 See Patague v. 1 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., C 10-03460 SBA, 2010 WL 4695480, at *2 2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2010). 3 clearly time-barred. 4 the same reasons. 5 U.S.C. § 2605); Patague, 2010 WL 4695480, at *3 (explaining that § 6 2605 claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations). 7 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's TILA and RESPA claims 8 sua sponte. 9 App'x 646 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding district court's dismissal of Either way, Plaintiff's TILA claim is Plaintiff's RESPA claim is time-barred for See Compl. at 21 (bringing RESPA claim under 12 See Shoop v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 465 F. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 time-barred TILA claim where plaintiffs, unlike here, were not 11 represented by counsel and were never given an opportunity to 12 respond to a motion to dismiss). 13 Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to assert 14 supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.1 Lacking jurisdiction over The instant case is hereby DISMISSED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: November 14, 2012 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The complaint mentions 28 U.S.C. § 1334 as a possible basis for federal jurisdiction. That statute, however, confers federal jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings. As Plaintiff's counsel must be aware, this is not a bankruptcy proceeding. The Court notes, moreover, that the complaint is a lightly edited copy of a form pleading available on the Internet at Plaintiff's counsel is reminded that, whatever the true authorship of the pleading he signed, Rule 11 holds him responsible for its contents and for conducting a reasonable inquiry into its factual and legal assertions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). 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?