Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 02/06/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff & Henrico GDC) (nbrow)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
IL
FEB - 7 20l7
RAIFORD BEASLEY,
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:16cv940
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A. 'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF'S WARRANT IN DEBT
OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
("Motion to Dismiss")
Remand (ECF No.
6).
(ECF No.
3)
and Plaintiff Raiford Beasley's Motion to
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion
to Remand will be granted and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
will be denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
This action began in the General District Court of Henrico
County where Beasley filed a Warrant in Debt seeking $25,000 in
damages
based
on
the
single
statement
that
"Wells
Fargo
submitted wrongly negative information to the credit agency that
damaged my credit
rating."
(ECF No.
1,
Exhibit B).
Concluding
that Beasley was alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act
(FCRA),
15
U.S.C.
§§
1681
et.
seq.,
Wells
Fargo
filed
a
timely 1
has
notice of removal to this Court (ECF No. 1). Wells Fargo
since filed
a motion to dismiss
the Warrant in Debt,
and
alternatively asks the Court to order a more definite statement
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
On December 21,
(ECF
No.
contract
6),
only.
2016,
clarifying
Wells
filed DEFENDANT WELLS
(ECF No. 4, 1-4).
Beasley filed this Motion to Remand
that
his
action
Fargo nonetheless
FARGO BANK,
is
opposes
for
breach
remand and has
N.A.' S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RAIFORD BEASLEY'S MOTION TO REMAND
No. 6)
of
(ECF
("Def. Resp.") . Wells Fargo maintains that the Warrant in
Debt indicates a federal claim. Id. 3-4.
Beasley has requested a hearing on his motion
however,
(ECF No. 7);
the briefs that have been filed adequately present the
dispute,
and
further
argument
would
not
aid
the
Court
in
reaching a decision. Thus, the Court denies Beasley's request in
its discretion under Fed.
R.
merits
For
of
the
motions.
Civ.
the
P.
78,
reasons
and proceeds to the
set
forth
below,
Beasley's Motion to Remand will be granted and the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot.
Wells Fargo was served with the Warrant in Debt on October 31,
2016.
(ECF No. 1 at ~8). The notice of removal was filed
November 30, 2016. Id.
1
2
DISCUSSION
Removal is governed by 28 U.S.C.
§
1441, which provides in
relevant part:
(a) . . . any civil action brought in a state
court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction,
may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and di vision
embracing the place where such action is
pending.
"Because
removal
jurisdiction
raises
significant
federalism
concerns," the Fourth Circuit has concluded that district courts
"must
strictly
Columbia
1994).
construe
Organic
removal
Chemicals
Consequently,
if
jurisdiction."
Co.,
29
federal
F.3d
148,
jurisdiction
Mulcahey
151
is
(4th
v.
Cir.
doubtful,
a
remand is necessary. Id.
Jurisdiction is at best doubtful here.
initial
statement
stating
a
claim
on
the
under
Warrant
Federal
in
Debt
law,
he
Although Beasley's
could
has
be
since
read
as
clarified
otherwise. His motion to remand reads as follows:
I am requesting to have this case moved back to
Henrico General District Court. This case was filed as
a result of the breach of a verbal and written
agreement
to
resolve
a
case
(GV-13-15762-00)
previously filed in Henrico General District Court.
(Court Date 9/6/13). Wells Fargo was negligent in
honoring their commitment. I am requesting a hearing
before a judge.
(Beasley's
Motion
demonstrates
that
1).
Most
he
is
plausibly
asserting
3
read,
a
claim
Beasley's
for
motion
breach
of
contract,
specifically
a
"verbal
and
written
agreement
to
resolve" an earlier case also filed in General District Court.
Id.
That claim does not "arise[]
under the Constitution,
or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
therefore
lacks
jurisdiction
in
this
1331.
§
case,
laws,
The Court
and
remand
is
is
proper
by
necessary.
Wells
Fargo
maintains
that
jurisdiction
continuing to construe only the one-line Warrant in Debt,
and
otherwise arguing that the "outcome of this case depends upon
questions of federal law," in particular preemption.
3-4).
However,
established
Wells
Fargo's
that
principle
position
federal
a
is
(Def. Resp.
contrary
defense,
to
even
one
the
of
preemption, does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C.
§
1331. See Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr.
Laborers
(1983)
Vacation
Trust
for
S.
California,
463
U.S.
1,
12
(holding that removal was improper even if "neither the
obligation
created
by
state
law
nor
failure to comply are in dispute,
the
defendant's
factual
and both parties admit that
the only question for decision is raised by a federal preemption
defense") .
Beasley is the master of his complaint, and he is not bound
by
how
Williams,
the
482
Defendant
U.S.
interprets
386,
purposes of this case,
398
it.
(1987).
Beasley "may,
4
Caterpillar
Most
Inc.
importantly
v.
for
by eschewing claims based
on federal law, choose to have the cause heard in state court."
Id. at 398-99 (emphasis added) .
That is especially so where, as
here, the state court action is commenced by filing a Warrant in
Debt, which requires only a terse description of the claim,
and
which was filed by a lay person acting pro se. Beasley's motion
to remand makes it clear that he is "eschewing claims based on
federal
matter
law."
Id.
Therefore,
jurisdiction
Beasley's
Motion
in
to
there
this
Remand.
is
and
case,
Having
lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
no
the
basis
for
Court
determined
subject
will
that
grant
the
Court
the Court will also deny the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as moot.
CONCLUSION
For
(ECF No.
MOTION
the
6)
reasons
stated above,
will be granted.
TO
ALTERNATIVELY
DISMISS
THE
MOTION
Beasley's Motion to
Remand
DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S
PLAINTIFF'S
FOR MORE
DEFINITE
IN
WARRANT
STATEMENT
DEBT
(ECF No.
will be denied as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
Isl
,
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date:
February
I-'
2017
5
OR
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?