Mamboleo v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court and denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay this action pending a ruling on the motion to remand. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/21/14.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Elie K. Mamboleo, No. CV-14-00648-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Plaintiff Elie Mamboleo has filed a motion to remand. Doc. 17. Defendant Wells 15 Fargo Bank NA has filed a response in which Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. has joined. 16 Docs. 22, 23. No party has requested oral argument. The Court will deny the motion. 17 Plaintiff commenced this action on February 27, 2014, in Maricopa County 18 Superior Court. Doc. 1-1 at 26. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to assert state law claims 19 as well as claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 20 (“FDCPA”), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”). Id. 21 at 29. Chex Systems filed a notice of removal on March 28, 2014, to which Wells Fargo 22 consented. Doc. 1. 23 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 24 United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the 25 district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where 26 such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 27 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s complaint appears to assert claims under two federal statutes, 28 the FDCPA and the FCRA. Doc. 1-1 at 26-32. Plaintiff does not deny in his motion that 1 he asserts claims under these statutes. Because the Court would have original jurisdiction 2 over these claims (see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original 3 jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 4 United States.”), they can be removed. The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction 5 over state law claims that “are so related to claims in the action within [the Court’s] 6 original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1367(a). Plaintiff’s state and federal claims appear to arise out of the same facts. 8 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) provides that the “notice of removal of a civil action or 9 proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of 10 the initial pleading[.]” Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on February 27, 2014, and the 11 notice of removal was filed less than 30 days later on March 28, 2014. 12 Defendants’ removal was timely. Thus, 13 Finally, both Defendants joined the removal. Section 1446(2)(A) states that “all 14 defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the 15 removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(2)(A). Chex Systems’ notice of removal notes 16 that Wells Fargo consented. Doc. 1 at 3. Wells Fargo’s response to Plaintiff’s motion 17 confirms that it consented to removal. 18 § 1441(b)(2) as requiring a “signed joint paper for removal,” but that provision deals with 19 diversity of citizenship not federal question jurisdiction. The Court therefore concludes 20 that this action was properly removed. Doc. 22 at 6. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. 21 IT IS ORDERED: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 17) is denied. 23 2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action pending a ruling on the motion to 24 25 remand (Doc. 24) is also denied. Dated this 21st day of May, 2014. 26 27 28 -2-

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?