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)

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-