Opinion
No. C09-02518 HRL.
April 21, 2010
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [Re: Docket No. 32]
Plaintiffs filed the instant action in this court, asserting federal question jurisdiction as to their claims under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605. Several state law claims for relief were also asserted. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint which continued to assert claims under these two federal statutes, as well as several state law claims for relief. This court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have now filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in which they have opted to drop all federal claims for relief. Thus, there is no longer any federal question jurisdiction. Nor is there an apparent basis for diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, there is also no basis upon which supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims could rest. See, e g., Pintando v. Miami-Dade Housing Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2007). If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is unopposed, is granted, and plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice. The motion hearing set for April 27, 2010 is vacated. The clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED.