Mitchell et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al

Filing 169

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: The Court previously dismissed eleven of the Plaintiffs' fifteen claims. Each of the remaining four claims are state law claims. The court agrees with Defendants that exercising supplemental juri sdiction would require the court to decide a number of state law issues from many different states. Those issues are best addressed by the state courts in each of those jurisdictions. The court also notes that the remaining claims appear to involve minimal damages. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 2/7/19. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
LAWRENCE J. MITCHELL, et. al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:16-cv-966

v.
Judge Clark Waddoups
WELLS FARGO BANK, et. al.,
Defendants.

Background
In the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that “[t]his Court has original
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2).” (TAC ¶ 20, ECF No. 69 at 5.) On December 21,
2018, the court entered an order holding that there were “not sufficient facts pleaded for the court
to conclude that it has jurisdiction under §1332(d)(2).” (ECF No. 164 at 13.) But the court did
hold that it had “federal question jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law.”
(ECF No. 164 at 16.) Ultimately, the court dismissed eleven of the Plaintiffs’ fifteen claims.
Each of the remaining four claims are state law claims. The court requested that the parties
address why the court should or should not exercise jurisdiction over those state law claims.
Plaintiffs argue that because “the Court is familiar with the parties, the issues, with the
matters which have been argued before this Court,” and to prevent “multiple lawsuits” from
being “initiated across the country with inconsistent results,” the court should “retain jurisdiction
over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.” (ECF No. 165 at 11.)

Defendants argue that “Tenth Circuit authority, and compelling issues of judicial
economy, convenience, and fairness, warrant dismissal of the remaining state-law claims.” (ECF
No. 168.) Defendants point out that “seven of the eight remaining Plaintiffs opened their
accounts in states other than Utah, and those Plaintiffs’ remaining common law claims will likely
be governed by other state’s substantive laws.” (ECF No. 168 at 6.)
Analysis
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction if ‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’”
Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) “When all federal claims have
been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any
remaining state claims.” Id.
The court agrees with Defendants that exercising supplemental jurisdiction would require
the court to decide a number of state law issues from many different states. Those issues are best
addressed by the state courts in each of those jurisdictions. The court also notes that the
remaining claims appear to involve minimal damages. The court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367,
the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Court Judge