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)

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
www.scribd.com/doc/53663589/Verified-Rico-Complaint-Template.
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