Baker v. Stellar Recovery, Inc. et al
Filing
3
OPINION and ORDER Declining Supplemental Jurisdiction over State Law Claims; ( Amended Complaint due by 11/23/2015) Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (JJoh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERICA BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:15-13983
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand
STELLAR RECOVERY, INC.,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
CAPITAL ONE BANK USA, N.A.,
PNC BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER DECLINING
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS
Erica Baker claims that Stellar Recovery, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Capital One Bank USA, N.A., and PNC Bank, N.A. each sent false information to
credit reporting agencies and failed to double-check what they had sent even after she challenged
its accuracy. (Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 15, 27, 29, 35, 37, 43, 45, 51, 53, 59.) As such, Baker has sued
each of the five defendants for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. But in addition to those
five counts, Baker has counts against Stellar Recovery under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Michigan Occupational Code. And she has five counts against each of the five
defendants under state law: intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligence
per se, defamation, and statutory libel. Baker asserts that the Court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over her state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the same factual bases
underlie all her claims.
But may does not mean must. See Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 196
F.3d 617, 620 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[D]istrict courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted));
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing that district courts “may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if, “in exceptional circumstances,” there are “compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction”). A jury cannot be expected to successfully wrestle with jury
instructions corresponding to 32 counts where the legal standards differ greatly. See Moor v.
Alameda Cnty., 411 U.S. 693, 716 (1973) (providing that likelihood of jury confusion was
appropriate factor to consider in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction); Padilla
v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (“The potential for jury
confusion can be a sufficiently compelling reason for declining jurisdiction.”). For example, the
elements of a federal Fair Credit Reporting Act claim are not at all like those of a state
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Compare 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) (listing duties
for furnishers of information), with Roberts v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 422 Mich. 594, 602, 374
N.W.2d 905, 908 (1985) (listing elements of IIED claim). And it is unclear from the Complaint
whether each Defendant sent the same information (or even different information but about the
same debt).
Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over all counts asserting
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligence per se, defamation, and
statutory libel. The Court has original jurisdiction over the five Fair Credit Reporting Act claims
and the one Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim. Upon a very preliminary review, it appears
that the Michigan Occupational Code claim is based on similar law to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act claim. So the Court will retain that state-law count for the time being. Plaintiff is to
2
file an amended complaint consistent with this opinion by November 23, 2015. (The Court notes
that the count numbering in the original complaint was incorrect.)
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 18, 2015
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys
and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on November 18, 2015.
s/Jane Johnson
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
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?