Botti v. Trans Union LLC
Filing
35
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 7/2/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
JOHN R. BOTTI III,
Case No: C 11-04519 SBA
8
Plaintiff,
DISMISSAL ORDER
9
vs.
10
TRANS UNION LLC,
11
Defendant.
12
13
14
On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff John Botti, III ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se,
15
brought the instant action against Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Defendant") alleging a
16
federal claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, and a state
17
law claim under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"), Cal.
18
Civ. Code § 1785.1 et seq. Dkt. 1. On May 4, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
19
in part Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
20
Procedure. Dkt. 34.
21
In that Order, Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted as to Plaintiff's FCRA
22
claim, which was dismissed with leave to amend. Dkt. 34. Defendant's motion to dismiss
23
as to Plaintiff's CCRAA claim was denied without prejudice. Id. Plaintiff was given
24
twenty-one (21) days from the date the Order was filed to file a first amended complaint.
25
Id. The Order expressly warned Plaintiff that the failure to file a first amended complaint
26
by the deadline would result in the dismissal of his FCRA claim with prejudice and the
27
dismissal of his state law claim without prejudice to the filing of this claim in a state court
28
action. Id.
1
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
2
FCRA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. Having now dismissed the federal claim
3
alleged against Defendant, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over
4
Plaintiff's remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may
5
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has
6
original jurisdiction); see also Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir.
7
2010) (" '[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the
8
balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine – judicial
9
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity – will point toward declining to exercise
10
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.' "); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934
11
F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) ("it is generally preferable for a district court to remand
12
remaining pendant claims to state court. . . .").
13
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
14
1.
Plaintiff's FCRA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.
15
2.
The Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
16
CCRAA claim, which is dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of this claim in a state
17
court action.
18
3.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending matters.
Dated: 7/2/12
______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
BOTTI et al,
5
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
9
v.
TRANS UNION LLC et al,
Defendant.
/
10
11
Case Number: CV11-04519 SBA
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13
14
15
16
17
18
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 2, 2012, 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.
19
20
21
22
23
24
John R Botti
1163 Capri Drive
Campbell, CA 95008-6003
Dated: July 2, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
25
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk
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?