Blanchard et al v. Lee et al

Filing 205

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT, 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 6/13/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DENNIS BLANCHARD, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 13-220

SALVADOR LEE, ET AL.

SECTION I
ORDER OF REMAND

When the above-captioned matter was removed from state court, the removing party asserted
jurisdiction solely on the basis of 12 U.S.C. § 632, which creates federal question subject matter
jurisdiction over “all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity to which any corporation
organized under the laws of the United States shall be a party, arising out of transactions involving
international or foreign banking.”1 The notice of removal identified only two defendants as
corporations “organized under the laws of the United States”: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
Fargo”), and Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America.”).2 The Court granted motions to dismiss
and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Wells Fargo and Bank of America.3
Because the claims against Wells Fargo and Bank of America have been dismissed, it is
appropriate for the Court to examine the present basis for subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’
claims against the remaining defendants. See Wilson v. Dantas, 2013 WL 92999, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 7, 2013) (holding that 12 U.S.C. § 632 “does not give this Court original jurisdiction over the
entire suit, but only over those claims and parties that could have initially come before a Federal

1

R. Doc. No. 1, at 7.
R. Doc. No. 1, at 7-8.
3
R. Doc. No. 119.
2

1

Court”), aff’d 746 F.3d 530 (2d Cir. 2014). No party has articulated another basis for subject matter
jurisdiction, and none is apparent from the record.4
Because the “court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court
“may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over plaintiffs’ remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) (emphasis added). When deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction, the
Court should be “guided by the statutory factors set forth in section 1367(c) as well as the common
law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc.
v. Dayco Prods, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 601-02 (5th Cir. 2009). Because a trial date has not yet been
scheduled in the above-captioned matter and because there has been minimal progress in advancing
the matter, considering the relevant factors the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claims in favor of remand to the state court
where this matter was originally filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Wilson, 2013 WL 92999,
at *8-9 (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanding after dismissing the only
claims giving rise to subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 632). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the 22nd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 13, 2016.
________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

The pleadings also do not suggest a federal question, and complete diversity of citizenship
appears to be lacking because plaintiffs allege that both they and defendant, Salvador Lee, reside
in Louisiana. R. Doc. No. 1-3, at 2-3.
2