Awah v. Capital One Bank, NA

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 6/23/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/23/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
EDMUND AWAH
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 14-1288

:
CAPITAL ONE BANK, NA
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this consumer
case

is

a

motion

to

remand

filed

by

Plaintiff

(“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Awah”) (ECF No. 36).

Edmund

Awah

The issues have been

fully briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed
necessary.

Local Rule 105.6.

For the following reasons, the

motion to remand will be denied.
I.

Background
The factual and procedural background of this case was set

forth in a prior opinion, thus only those facts relevant to the
instant dispute will be set forth here.
Defendant

Capital

One,

N.A.

(See ECF Nos. 19 & 20).

(“Capital

One”

or

“Defendant”)

removed this action to this court on April 16, 2014, citing
federal question jurisdiction.
violations

of

the

Federal

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged
Debt

Collection

Practices

Act

(“FDCPA”) because Defendant allegedly filed a derogatory report
on

Plaintiff’s

credit

file.

The

court

issued

a

memorandum

opinion and order on January 22, 2015, adjudicating Plaintiff’s
motion to remand, motion for leave to file an amended complaint,
and Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

(ECF Nos. 19 & 20).

The

court noted that, at the time of removal, Plaintiff’s complaint
expressly

indicated

that

his

action

was

premised

on

alleged

violations of the FDCPA, a federal statute, thus removal was
proper.

(ECF

No.

19,

at

6).

Following

removal,

Plaintiff

sought to amend his complaint, indicating that he no longer
asserted claims under the FDCPA, instead opting to proceed to
proceed under the “Maryland Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”
(ECF No. 16).

The January 22, 2015 opinion allowed Plaintiff to

file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days.

The court

observed: “If the new complaint does not state a federal cause
of

action

and

Plaintiff’s

only

viable

claims

pertain

to

Defendant’s methods of collection under MCDCA, then the court
may exercise its discretion and remand the case to state court.”
(ECF No. 19, at 7-8) (emphasis added).
On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
asserting violations of the MCDCA and requesting actual damages
in the amount of $100,000 and $200,000 in punitive damages.
(ECF

No.

21).

Defendant

answered

the

amended

complaint

on

February 27, 2015 (ECF No. 22), and also filed correspondence,
stating in relevant part:

2

Although the Amended Complaint contains
only a claim based on the MCDCA, the Amended
Complaint nevertheless establishes federal
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
provides in relevant part that “district
courts have original jurisdiction of all
civil
actions
where
the
matter
in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and
is between . . . citizens of different
States . . .”
Plaintiff
is
a
Maryland
citizen.
Capital
One
is
a
national
banking
association chartered under federal law with
its main office located in Virginia, and is
a citizen of Virginia for purposes of
diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. . . .
Moreover, Plaintiff seeks
compensatory
damages
in
the
amount
of
$100,000, plus punitive damages in the
amount of $200,000 (see Docket No. 21 at 3),
which exceeds the $75,000 threshold required
for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332.
(ECF No. 23, at 1-2).
March

2,

2015,

The court entered a scheduling order on

implicitly

supplemental state law claims.

deciding

not

to

remand

the

(ECF No. 24).

On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff again sought leave to amend
his complaint.
motion.

(ECF No. 30).

Defendant did not oppose the

The court issued an order on April 6, 2015, allowing

Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
No. 34, second amended complaint).
remand the action to state court.

(ECF No. 31; ECF

Plaintiff then moved to
(ECF No. 36).

Defendant

opposed the motion (ECF No. 38), and Plaintiff replied (ECF No.
39).
3

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
Plaintiff once again seeks to remand this case to state

court.

This time, Plaintiff suggests that this court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy
does not exceed $75,000 and at the time this action was removed,
Plaintiff sought only $10,000 in damages.

(ECF No. 36, at 1).

Notably, after the court allowed Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint in the January 22, 2015 memorandum opinion, he filed
an

amended

complaint

seeking

$100,000

$200,000 in punitive damages.
amended

complaint,

however,

in

actual

(ECF No. 21).

Plaintiff

damages

and

In his second

revised

the

ad

damnum

clause to remove a demand for any specific amount in damages:
“Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for compensatory
and punitive relief in an amount to be determined at trial plus
costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as the Court may
deem appropriate.”

(ECF No. 34, at 4).

Plaintiff explains:

“Plaintiff did not possess the skill and aptitude to quantify
damages accurately.
jury

to

$75,000

make
and

As a result, Plaintiff decided to allow the

those
this

Amended Complaint.”

determinations

fact

was

which

reflected

in

may

be

lower

Plaintiff’s

than

Second

(ECF No. 35, at 3).

Plaintiff’s motion to remand will be denied.

The propriety

of the removal is not at issue here, considering that removal
was premised on federal question jurisdiction.
4

As explained in

the January 22, 2015 memorandum opinion, “[t]he removability of
a case depends upon the state of the pleadings and the record
[at] the time of the application for removal.”

(ECF No. 19, at

6 (quoting Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 367 (4th
Cir. 2013)).

At the time of removal, Plaintiff had alleged

violations of the FDCPA, a federal statute.

Plaintiff then

sought to amend the complaint to add a state law claim under the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”), Md. Code Ann.,
Com.

Law,

§

14-201

et

seq.

Once

the

federal

claim

was

dismissed, the court was free to exercise its discretion to
maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim or
remand to state court.

See United Mine Workers of America v.

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 729 (1966).

Consequently, Plaintiff was

permitted to file an amended complaint to state a claim under
the MCDCA on the limited grounds identified in the January 22,
2015

memorandum

opinion,

after

which

point

the

court

would

consider remanding.
Plaintiff

suggests

that

the

court

lacks

subject

matter

jurisdiction because he sought $10,000 in damages in the initial
complaint – at the time the action was removed.

Removal was

based on federal question jurisdiction, however, not diversity.
There is no question that the court maintains subject matter
jurisdiction over the claims and the only issue is whether it
should exercise its discretion and remand.
5

Here, a scheduling

order has already been issued and the parties are well into
discovery.

Accordingly, the motion to remand will be denied.

III. Conclusion
For

the

foregoing

will be denied.

reasons,

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

6

remand