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)

Download PDF
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?