Sizoo v. Olympus Mortgage Company et al

Filing 24

ORDER REMANDING CASE., ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/7/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 OAKLAND DIVISION 5 DENISE SIZOO, an individual, Case No: C 11-2561 SBA 6 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 7 vs. 8 OLYMPUS MORTGAGE COMPANY, a 9 Delaware corporation, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Denise Sizoo, acting pro se, commenced the instant mortgage fraud action 13 in Sonoma County Superior Court on April 26, 2011, against American Home Mortgage 14 Servicing, Inc., among others. On May 26, 2011, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal 15 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. 16 Although the Complaint only asserts state law causes of action, Plaintiff’s sixth cause of 17 action, styled as “Defendants Lack Standing to Proceed with Foreclosure,” alleges that 18 Defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z. Compl. ¶ 32. 19 On June 2, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, 20 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 17. Plaintiff failed to file an 21 opposition to the motion by October 11, 2011, as required by the version of Local Rule 7-3 22 in effect when the motion was filed. Thus, on October 27, 2011, the Court sua sponte 23 granted Plaintiff an extension of time until November 4, 2011 to oppose the motion, and 24 continued the motion hearing to November 15, 2011. Dkt. 23. To date, the Court has not 25 received any response from Plaintiff. 26 Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court 27 grants said motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action insofar as it is 28 predicated on TILA and/or Regulation Z. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1 1995) (court may grant unopposed motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b)). The Court 2 declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims, all of which 3 are based on state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 4 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental 5 jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’”) 6 (quoting in part 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(c)(3)). Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 8 1. 9 10 11 12 Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as unopposed with respect to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action insofar as it is predicated upon violations of TILA and/or Regulation Z. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. 2. The Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims and REMANDS the action to Sonoma County Superior Court. 13 3. The hearing date of November 15, 2011 is VACATED. 14 4. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: November 7, 2011 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 DENISE SIZOO, 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 OLYMPUS MORTGAGE COMPANY et al, 9 Defendant. / 10 11 Case Number: CV11-02561 SBA 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 13 14 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 15 16 17 That on November 8, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 18 19 20 Denise Sizoo 4733 Stonehedge Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95405 21 22 Dated: November 8, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 23 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 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?