Kathy Westfall v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in a wrongful foreclosure action after the plaintiff dismissed the only federal claims, leaving only state law claims. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied the motion as moot, and granted the plaintiff leave to amend to allege diversity jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction“For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and the *Gibbs* factors. Since the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the only federal claims (RESPA and TILA) against Bank of America, no federal question jurisdiction remained. The plaintiff failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction. Under *Acri* and *Cohill*, the balance of factors points toward declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims when all federal claims are eliminated before trial. |
Denial of Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot“Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as moot.” | agree with court Because the court dismissed the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
Granting Plaintiff leave to amend to allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction.” | agree with court 28 U.S.C. § 1653 allows a court to grant leave to amend a pleading to cure a defect in jurisdiction. The court previously noted in a prior order that the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts regarding citizenship. Granting leave to amend is appropriate to allow the plaintiff to attempt to establish diversity jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the loss of federal question jurisdiction due to the dismissal of the RESPA and TILA claims. It properly applies the *Gibbs* factors via *Acri* and *Cohill* to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. It correctly cites § 1653 to grant leave to amend for diversity. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KATHY WESTFALL, Case No.: 3:15-cv-01403-L-NLS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 12 LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC JURISDICTION AND GRANTING 13 REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. et al., PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 Pending before the Court in this wrongful foreclosure action is Defendants' motion 19 for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendants' replied. For 20 the reasons stated below, the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 21 Defendants' motion is denied as moot, and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend 22 jurisdictional allegations. 23 In her operative first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged claims for (1) violations 24 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (“RESPA”), (2) 25 violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. (“TILA”), (3) wrongful 26 foreclosure, (4) quiet title, (5) cancellation of instruments, (6) violation of California 27 Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17200, et. seq. (“UCL”), and (7) 28 unjust enrichment. The third cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, only to the extent 1 Plaintiff sought damages, and seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment have been 2 dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. no. 38 (Order Granting in Part and Denying in 3 Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Order").) 4 As noted in the Order (Order at 3), the Court had federal question jurisdiction over 5 the first and second causes of action alleging RESPA and TILA violations, and 6 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 & 7 1367. Subsequently, Plaintiff dismissed all claims against Defendant Bank of America, 8 N.A. ("B of A"). (Docs. no. 75, 76.) Because the RESPA and TILA claims were alleged 9 only against B of A (see doc. no. 21 (first am. compl. ("FAC")) at 21, 24), no federal 10 claims remain, and the Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over any claims. 11 Although Plaintiff also alleged that the Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 12 1332, she did not allege sufficient facts regarding citizenship of each party to support that 13 assertion (see id. at 2-3), an issue that was brought to Plaintiff's attention in the Order 14 (Order at 3 n.1). 15 A district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [if it] has 16 dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, ... ." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 17 see also Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 18 "While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is 19 triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the 20 Gibbs values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Id. at 1001 (referring to 21 United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); internal quotation marks and 22 citations omitted.) "[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated 23 before trial, the balance of factors ... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction 24 over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 25 350 n.7 (1988) (quoted in Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001). Accordingly, the Court declines to 26 exercise federal jurisdiction over the state law claims. 27 For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for 28 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is 1 denied as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to 2 || allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, 3 ||she must do so no later than January 15, 2019. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: December 27, 2018 8 H . James Lorenz 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28