Smithville 169, LLC et al v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company

Filing 41

ORDER denying 10 Plaintiffs' motion to remand. Signed on 12/13/11 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
SMITHVILLE 169, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-CV-0872-DGK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
This case arises out of a $7,950,000 loan made by Defendant Citizens Bank & Trust
Company to Plaintiff Smithville 169 which the other Plaintiffs guaranteed. Defendant alleges
Smithville 169 and the Plaintiff guarantors failed to pay off the loan when it became due.
Plaintiffs allege Defendant breached the loan agreements first and committed a variety of
economic torts, including fraud, tortious interference with contracts and business expectancy,
and violation of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”).
This case was originally filed in Missouri state court and then removed by Defendant to
this Court pursuant to this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Now before the Court is
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (doc. 10). Plaintiffs’ motion is premised on there being no claim
before the Court over which it possesses original jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ argument is that when a
federal court has dismissed all the claims over which it possesses original jurisdiction, it should
not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to hear any remaining state law claims. Pl.’s Mem. in
Supp. at 4-5.
But the factual predicate for this argument does not exist. On November 17, 2011, the
Court denied Plaintiff Beverly Nelson’s motion to dismiss without prejudice her ECOA claim,
the sole claim over which this Court possesses original jurisdiction. Given that the Court

possesses original subject matter jurisdiction over a claim in this case, the interests of judicial
economy, convenience, and fairness all weigh in favor of the Court hearing all the other claims
arising from this controversy under its supplemental jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs’ motion (doc. 10) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

December 13, 2011

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2