Adamian v. Bank of America , N.A. et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting-in-Part Motion to Dismiss 22 and Remanding; finding as moot 5 and 7 Motions to Dismiss.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2010)

Adamian v. Bank of America , N.A. et al

Doc. 46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARCUS ADAMIAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., WELLS FARGO ) BANK, N.A., FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR ) TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-200, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-00049-LHK

ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIM AND REMANDING

On November 20, 2009, Plaintiff Marcus Adamian filed a complaint against Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (B of A), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) and First American Loanstar Trustee Services, LLC (First American) in California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. See Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1) , Ex. B (Compl.) at 1. Plaintiff's Complaint alleged violations of California law resulting from the foreclosure sale of his residence located at 2624 Cherry Avenue in San Jose, California. Id., Ex. B. Plaintiff's claims exclusively stated violations of California law, not Federal law. Id., Ex. B, 7-14. However, Plaintiff's fourth cause of action claimed violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) based "solely" on alleged violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.§§ 1601 et seq. Id., Ex. B at 9. On January 6, 2010, Wells Fargo and B of A (the Banks) jointly removed this action from the Superior Court 1 Case No.: 10-CV-00049-LHK ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIM AND REMANDING
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

based on this Court's original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's TILA claim, under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). See Notice of Removal at ¶ 5. Regarding all of Plaintiff's other claims, the Banks alleged this Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). Id. ¶ 6. First American joined in the notice of removal. Id., Ex. A. The Banks moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims on January 13, 2010; First American similarly moved on January 19, 2010. See Dkt. Nos. 5,7. After this, on June 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Again, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Banks' Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 22); First American Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 24). In their Motion to Dismiss, the Banks argue that all of Plaintiff's claims, including the fourth cause of action, should be dismissed. As in the initial Complaint, the fourth cause of action in the Amended Complaint alleges violations of the California UCL based "solely" on underlying TILA violations. Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 15) at ¶¶ 51-55. The Banks argued that this claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Banks' Mot. to Dismiss at 9-13. In his Opposition to the Banks' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff states that he "[d]oes not oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss his fourth cause of action." See Pl.'s Opp'n (Dkt. No. 37) at 8. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff's fourth cause of action WITH PREJUDICE. Dismissal of this cause of action removes the only federal claim, and the only source of original federal jurisdiction, from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In this situation, it is within the Court's discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, or not. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866-67 (2009); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) ("The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .) ." The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the rest of Plaintiff's claims. Therefore, this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for Santa Clara County. The hearing on the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, set for October 21, 2010 is hereby VACATED.

2 Case No.: 10-CV-00049-LHK ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIM AND REMANDING

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2010 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

3 Case No.: 10-CV-00049-LHK ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIM AND REMANDING