Morrow v. Dish Network, L.L.C. et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Remand to State Court is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 1/12/2012. (STB)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
)
)
)
)
)Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-395-JMH
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
LLOYD MORROW,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISH NETWORK, L.L.C., and
THE CBE GROUP, INC.
Defendants.
**
**
**
**
**
Plaintiff filed suit in Garrard Circuit Court, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act1 (hereinafter
“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, as well as related state-law
claims.
[DE 1-1].
On December 1, 2011, Defendants filed a Joint
Notice of Removal, [DE 1], asserting that this Court possesses
federal-question jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, as
well as diversity jurisdiction, based on the parties’ diversity and
the amount in controversy.
Plaintiff now moves to remand this
matter to state court, alleging that neither federal-question nor
diversity
1
jurisdiction
exists.
For
the
following
reasons,
Plaintiff’s Complaint, as well as Defendants’ Notice of
Removal, refers to Plaintiff’s federal law claims as being brought
pursuant to the “Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.” While
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand suggests that he has now realized his
mistake, the Court wishes to clarify that the correct citation is
to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Pub. L. 95-109,
Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 874.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [DE 3], will be denied.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has jurisdiction over
claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides that a defendant can
remove to federal district court any action filed in state court
that the plaintiff could have brought in federal court in the first
instance.
Although
Plaintiff
characterizes
this
action
as
involving “the mere presence of a federal issue,” it actually is
based, at least in part, on the enforcement of a right of action
created by federal statute.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (“An action to
enforce any liability created by this title may be brought in any
appropriate United States district court without regard to the
amount
in
controversy,
or
in
any
other
court
of
competent
jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation
occurs.”).
Thus, there is no question that claims alleging
violations of the FDCPA arise under federal law and, therefore, may
be filed in and removed to federal district court.
Plaintiff suggests that the language of 15 U.S.C. § 1692
compels this Court to decline jurisdiction because it permits
Plaintiff to bring the action in state court. Statutory permission
to litigate a federal claim in state court does not, however,
affect a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over the
matter. Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 630 F.3d 459, 464 (6th
Cir. 2010).
The Court possesses supplemental jurisdiction over
2
Plaintiff’s state law claims, as they are clearly part of the same
case or controversy as Plaintiff’s claim under the FDCPA.
See 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a); Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195,
209
(6th
Cir.
2004)(“Claims
form
part
of
the
same
case
or
controversy when they derive from a common nucleus of operative
facts.”).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, none of the reasons
for declining supplemental jurisdiction exist in this case. See 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c). Finally, Plaintiff’s argument based on amount in
controversy
fails
since
there
is
no
amount-in-controversy
requirement in matters of which the Court has federal question
jurisdiction.
See Mattei v. Mattei, 126 F.3d 794, 808 (6th Cir.
1997).
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [DE 3],
is hereby DENIED.
This the 12th day of January, 2012.
3
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?