Shahid v. Educational Credit Management Corporation et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to remand (#14) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall REMAND this matter to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for attorneys fees is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/12/17. (cc: Circuit Court City of St. Louis, MO)(MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SHARHONDA T. SHAHID,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MGMT.
CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17 CV 2610 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to remand (#14). Plaintiff,
who is an attorney and who filed this matter pro se before retaining counsel, filed this
lawsuit against defendants Educational Credit Management Corp., ECMC, and
Educational Management Group in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Her original petition was titled as a “Motion to Quash and Petition for Relief under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” The petition alleged that the defendants were
improperly collecting on plaintiff’s student loan debt by garnishing her wages in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g (“FDCPA”). Three hours
after filing that petition, plaintiff filed an amended petition that removed all references to
the FDCPA. Instead, plaintiff’s amended petition brought a claim for “breach of
contract” based on an alleged agreement between plaintiff and defendants regarding
student loan payments. Plaintiff alleges that defendants wrongfully garnished her wages
and sought an order quashing the garnishment, fining defendants for acting in bad faith,

1

finding that the debt is invalid, and seeking other relief. Plaintiff also sought and
received a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from continuing to
garnish her wages. Defendants then removed the case to this Court, citing federal
question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the complaint sets forth a civil action
arising under the laws of the United States. Defendants sought an order quashing the
state court’s temporary restraining order. In response, plaintiff filed the instant motion to
remand.
Plaintiff contends that defendants’ basis for removal is invalid because the active
complaint does not contain a claim that arises under the laws of the United States.
“Removal based upon federal question jurisdiction is proper only if the claim asserting a
federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”
Kutilek v. Union Pac. R. Co., 454 F. Supp. 2d 876, 879 (E.D. Mo. 2006). This is known
as the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Id. Although plaintiff acknowledges that the
original complaint included an FDCPA claim, she contends that her amended complaint
does not. Because the amended complaint “supersedes an original complaint and renders
the original complaint without legal effect….federal courts must resolve questions of
subject matter jurisdiction by examining the face of the amended complaint.” In re Atlas
Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000).
Defendants maintain that, even looking only at the face of the amended complaint,
plaintiff’s case could only arise from federal law. For example, plaintiff seeks the same
remedies as before in her prayer for relief, including “fines,” which are only available

2

under the FDCPA. Defendants argue that plaintiff cannot evade federal question
jurisdiction by mischaracterizing a federal claim as something else. Indeed, a “plaintiff’s
characterization of a claim as based solely on state law is not dispositive of whether
federal question jurisdiction exists.” Peters v. Union Pac. R. Co., 80 F.3d 257, 260 (8th
Cir. 1996). The “complete preemption doctrine” prevents plaintiffs from avoiding
federal court in cases “where the preemptive force of the federal law is so clearly and
strongly stated with respect to an area of state law” that “the state law claim is considered
to be a federal claim from its inception.” Kutilek, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 880 (citing
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392-93 (1987)).
Here, however, defendants do not argue that the FDCPA completely preempts
state law causes of action. That is because the FDCPA is not one of those federal statutes
that completely preempts state law claims. 15 U.S.C. § 1692n (“this subchapter does not
annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter
from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices…”);
Dunmire v. Elliott Holdings, Inc., 06-0787-CV-W-ODS, 2006 WL 3392950, at *3 (W.D.
Mo. Nov. 22, 2006); Hage v. Gen. Serv. Bureau, 8:01CV367, 2002 WL 1796575, at *2
(D. Neb. Aug. 5, 2002). Defendants cite to another district court case in which the court
declined to remand the case in light of references to the FDCPA. See Tonea v. Bank of
Am., N.A., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1331, 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2014). But the Tonea plaintiff’s
complaint actually invoked the FDCPA and other federal statutes. Here, no reference to
the FDCPA remains in the complaint.

3

The Court must recognize that the plaintiff is the “master of the claim,”
Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 395, and here plaintiff has chosen to bring her claim as a breach
of contract claim. Vague references to “fines” make more sense in the context of
plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, but they do not automatically convert her claim to one arising
under the FDCPA. Ultimately, this Court “is required to resolve all doubts about federal
jurisdiction in favor of remand.” Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of
London, 119 F.3d 619, 625 (8th Cir. 1997).
However, in light of plaintiff’s somewhat confusing amended petition, the Court
will deny her request for attorney’s fees.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (#14) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall REMAND this matter to the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is
DENIED.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2017.
______________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4