December 4, 2013
California Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Action Alleging Violations of RESPA, HOEPA, UCL & Negligent Misrepresentation
The court in deciding Monreal v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151731 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. Therefore, the remaining state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff alleged four causes of action against Deutsche Bank, GMAC, ETS, and MERS, including: (1) violation of the UCL; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) violation of RESPA; and (4) violation of HOEPA. In total plaintiff alleged two claims arising under federal law, RESPA and HOEPA, and two claims arising under state law, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the UCL.
In deciding the matter at hand, the court decided that their subject matter jurisdiction was premised on federal question jurisdiction over the claims arising under federal law, and supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.
Accordingly, because the court found that plaintiff failed to state a viable cause of action under either RESPA or HOEPA, the court dismissed the federal causes of action with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
As a result, the Court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action.| Permalink