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)