From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RAYA v. MORTGAGE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 19, 2010
Civ. No. S-09-1325 FCD/GGH (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. S-09-1325 FCD/GGH.

February 19, 2010


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant Wachovia Mortgage to dismiss plaintiff Tony Raya Jr.'s ("plaintiff") second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6). On February 9, 2010, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, which included a statement of non-opposition to dismissal of plaintiff's claims under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). (Pl.'s Opp'n Mot. Dismiss, filed Feb. 9, 2010, n. 3.) Accordingly, plaintiff's TILA and RESPA claims are dismissed.

Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, was formerly known as World savings Bank, FSB.

Dismissal of the TILA and RESPA claims leaves the complaint devoid of any federal claims. The remaining claims are state law claims for negligence, violation of the California Rosenthal Act, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful foreclosure. (Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. ("Compl.").)

Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The court's decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed by values of "economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Id. at 1001 (citations omitted). Further, primary responsibility for developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated before trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[I]n the usual case in which federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.") (quoting Schneider v. TRW Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991)). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

RAYA v. MORTGAGE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 19, 2010
Civ. No. S-09-1325 FCD/GGH (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010)
Case details for

RAYA v. MORTGAGE

Case Details

Full title:TONY RAYA, JR., Plaintiff, v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, WORLD SAVINGS BANK…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 19, 2010

Citations

Civ. No. S-09-1325 FCD/GGH (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010)