Hayley et al v. Regions Bank
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Remand 17 is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa County, Alabama. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/5/2013. (jg, ) certified copy of docket and this order sent to Circuit Court of Tallapoosa County.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
THOMAS M. HAYLEY, AMY E.
HAYLEY, and HAYLEY FAMILY
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-437-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The court denied Plaintiffs’ first motion to remand on the basis that federal law
created the cause of action for their claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.1 (Doc. # 14.) Plaintiffs then moved the court to dismiss their federal claim,
leaving only state law claims for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation,
suppression, defamation, and interference with business and contractual relations.
(Doc. # 16.) After the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a
Renewed Motion to Remand. (Doc. # 17.) Unlike Plaintiffs’ first motion to remand,
their renewed motion is due to be granted.
The court incorporates by reference the background and jurisdictional information
contained in its order denying Plaintiffs’ first motion to remand.
Though the court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
remaining state law claims, it declines to do so. Interpretation of the parties’ lending
agreement and the extent to which its terms require arbitration will be a matter of
state law. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. ---, 130 S. Ct.
1758, 1773 (2010) (remarking that “the interpretation of an arbitration agreement is
generally a matter of state law”). An Alabama state court is as capable as this one of
ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, and given that only state law claims remain,
it is better situated to do so.
The law favors remand where federal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear,
Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2006), and this court must
heed the encouragement of the Eleventh Circuit “to dismiss any remaining state law
claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Raney
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing L.A. Draper & Son
v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d 414, 428 (11th Cir. 1984)).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Remand
(Doc. # 17) is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of
Tallapoosa County, Alabama. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take
appropriate steps to effect the remand.
DONE this 5th day of March, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?