United States District Court, D. Nevada
D. GEORGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, Yang Yang, purchased a house in November 2013.
Yang, however, continued to reside at a different location.
He alleges that the address of the house where he resided was
identified as his mailing address in the purchase documents.
Defendant Buffalo Ranch Homeowners Association, through its
agent defendant Absolute Collections Services, subsequently
foreclosed on the newly-bought property because Yang was
delinquent on that property's homeowner's association
assessments. Yang alleges these defendants never attempted to
locate or serve him at his residence.
Saticoy Bay purchased the home at the foreclosure sale and
subsequently sold the property to defendant Nattinan
brought this action, alleging state claims for quiet title
and unjust enrichment against all defendants, state claims
for wrongful foreclosure and negligence against Buffalo Ranch
and Absolute Collections, and a federal claim for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought solely
against Absolute Collection.
before the Court are:
1) Yang's Motion to Show Cause Why a Prejudgment Writ of
Attachment Should Not Issue Against Saticoy Bay (ECF No. 22);
2) Saticoy Bay's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
3) Saticoy Bay's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF
4) Buffalo Ranch's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 66);
5) Saticoy Bay's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 68); and
6) Wangdeevong's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
Bay argues that this Court should not exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Yang's state law claims as those claims
do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as
Yang's federal debt collection claim against Absolute
Collections. Alternatively, even if the Court determines the
state and federal claims arise from the same transaction or
occurrence, Saticoy Bay asks that the Court exercise its
discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
in this case. Buffalo Ranch and Wangdeevong have joined
Saticoy Bay in its motion.
jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear and decide state
claims along with federal claims when they "are so
related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy .. .." 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). As a general
rule, supplemental jurisdiction extends over state claims
brought against a party even when that party was not subject
to the federal claims primarily at issue. In Executive
Software North America, Inc. v.. U.S. Dist. Ct, 24 F.3d
1545, 1552 (9th Cir. 1994), the Court of Appeals recognized
that the Supreme Court has broadly authorized the federal
courts to assert jurisdiction over state law claims when
"the state and federal claims . .. derive from a common
nucleus of operative fact," the claims are such that a
plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them all
in one judicial proceeding," and the federal issues are
"substantial." Nevertheless, "district courts