Noriega v. Magno
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-07528
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Noriega v. Magno, Judge Chesney granted dismissal, dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice, and denied the class-allegations motion as moot.
Betty Noriega’s TILA claim was dismissed, and Counts II through VII were dismissed without prejudice to filing them in state court. Noriega was permitted to file an amended complaint by January 31, 2022; Magno’s motion to strike the class allegations was denied as moot.
What happened
In Noriega v. Magno, Betty Noriega asserted a Truth in Lending Act claim against Rose Magno, DDS, along with Counts II through VII.
The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I because Noriega did not allege facts supporting her claim that Magno was a creditor. The court dismissed Counts II through VII without prejudice to filing them in state court, and denied the motion to strike the class allegations as moot.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and allowed Noriega to file a First Amended Complaint by January 31, 2022.
The detailed version
- Noriega v. Magno · No. 3:21-cv-07528
- Maxine Chesney
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Betty Noriega filed a complaint against Rose Magno, DDS, doing business as Emeryville Dental Care. Count I asserted a claim under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The opinion states that Counts II through VII were supplemental in nature. Magno filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to strike the class allegations.
Court’s Rulings
The court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent it sought dismissal of Count I. TILA permits liability only against a “creditor,” and the court held that Noriega had not alleged facts supporting her conclusory assertion that Magno was a creditor.
Because the court dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II through VII. The court dismissed those counts without prejudice to filing them in state court.
The court denied Magno’s motion to strike the class allegations as moot because all claims in the complaint had been dismissed. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and allowed Noriega to file a First Amended Complaint no later than January 31, 2022. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and decided the motions based on the written submissions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.