Maurice Heffernan v. Nationstar Mortgage

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 8, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02387
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 24-2387-JFW(RAOx) Date: May 8, 2024 Title: Maurice Heffernan, et al. -v- Nationstar Mortgage, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND REMANDING TO SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURT On February 20, 2024, Plaintiffs Maurice Heffernan and Susan Heffernan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in Santa Barbara Superior Court. On March 22, 2024, Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing LLC removed this action to this Court, alleging that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action alleged a violation of Regulation X, codified at 12 C.F.R. 1026.40, et seq., and Plaintiffs’ thirteenth cause of action alleged a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1), ¶ 12. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which dismissed all of the federal claims Plaintiffs had alleged in their original Complaint. As a result, Plaintiffs’ FAC only contains state law claims. In light of the fact that Plaintiffs have dismissed the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, and after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988)) (“‘[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine – judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity – will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.’”). Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to Santa Barbara Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.