Schaub v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting in part defendant Wells Fargo's 6 Motion to Dismiss; directing the Clerk to remand the remaining state law claims to King County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Per LCR 3(I), case will be remanded 14 days from the date of this Order, on 5/22/2018.(SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

No. C17-1734RSL

PETER SCHAUB,
Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND
REMAND

v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

On November 16, 2017, Wells Fargo removed this action from King County Superior
Court asserting federal question jurisdiction. The parties agree, however, that the only federal
claims asserted in this litigation fail as a matter of law. Dkt. # 6 at 5-7; Dkt. # 9 at 1. Wells
Fargo’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 6) is therefore GRANTED in part and plaintiff’s RESPA

19

claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
20
21
22
23

When this case was removed to federal court, original jurisdiction over the claims
asserted under federal law existed, and the Court had supplemental jurisdiction over the related
state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction in

24

these circumstances, but it has the discretion to decline to continue to exercise supplemental

25

jurisdiction. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C.

26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND

1

§ 1367(c)). Pursuant to § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if

2

any one of the following factors is implicated:

3

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law;

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the
district court has original jurisdiction;
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction.
At least two, if not three, of the factors trigger the Court’s discretion in this case: all claims over
which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the remaining state law claims
dominate, and the application of state law in the context of a mortgage foreclosure and

13

modification raises uniquely state law issues regarding which the federal courts have not always
14
15
16
17

been the best prognosticators.
“While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is
triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs

18

values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d

19

999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (referring to United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966))

20

(internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the lack of any substantive rulings made in this

21

case to date, the exclusively state law matters at issue, and the fact that decisions regarding the

22

duties of lenders when considering a loan modification should be reviewed by the state appellate

23

courts, not the Ninth Circuit, the Court finds that a remand is appropriate.

24
25
26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND

-2-

1
2
3
4
5

Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 6) is GRANTED in part. The RESPA claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the remaining state law
claims to King County Superior Court, which can determine whether plaintiff’s Consumer
Protection Act claim is viable and whether plaintiff should be given leave to amend to allege
additional state law causes of action.

6
7
8

Dated this 8th day of May, 2018.

9

A

10

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND

-3-