Wodja v. Washington State Employees Credit Union et al

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 48 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.(TG)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

6 TODD WODJA, individually and on
behalf of all others individually situated,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
WASHINGTON STATE EMPLOYEES
10 CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-10,

CASE NO. C15-5693BHS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

Defendants.

11
12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Washington State Employees

14 Credit Union’s (“WSECU”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48). The Court has considered the
15 pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file
16 and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.
17

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff Todd Wodja (“Wodja”) filed a class action

19 complaint against WSECU asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of the
20 Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW Chapter 19.86, unjust
21 enrichment/restitution, money had and received, negligence, and Electronic Funds
22 Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. Dkt. 1.

ORDER - 1

1

On March 10, 2016, Wodja filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) asserting

2 claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment/restitution, and money had and received.
3 Dkt. 31.
4

On March 25, 2016, WSECU filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 32. On June 9,

5 2016, the Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part ruling on the
6 scope of the parties’ contract and dismissing Wodja’s extra-contractual claims in light of
7 the contract. Dkt. 36.
8

On July 1, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order setting trial for September

9 12, 2017 and other pretrial deadlines. Dkt. 42.
10

On August 17, 2016, WSECU moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter

11 jurisdiction. Dkt. 48. On September 6, 2016, Wodja responded. Dkt. 54. On September
12 9, 2016, WSECU replied. Dkt. 56.
13
14

II. DISCUSSION
WSECU argues that the Court should dismiss Wodja’s complaint under the Class

15 Action Fairness Act’s home-state controversy exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B), and
16 should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wodja’s remaining state law
17 claim. With regard to the former, WSECU has shown that Wodja’s claims meet this
18 exception because 90% of the members of the alleged class reside in Washington and
19 WSECU’s principal place of business is in Washington. Dkt. 50, ¶¶ 6–7; Bridewell20 Sledge v. Blue Cross of California, 798 F.3d 923, 928–29 (9th Cir. 2015). Wodja failed
21 to respond to this argument, which the Court considers as an admission that the argument
22 has merit. Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). Moreover, WSECU has sufficiently

ORDER - 2

1 shown that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this alleged class action.
2 Thus, the Court grants WSECU’s motion on this issue.
3

With regard to supplemental jurisdiction, the Court also agrees with WSECU.

4 Although Wodja argues that the Court should exercise its discretion and retain
5 jurisdiction over his state law claim, it is unclear whether supplemental jurisdiction may
6 trump the home-state controversy exception. Bridewell-Sledge, 798 F.3d at 928 (“If the
7 [home-state controversy] conditions are met, a district court is required to remand the
8 class action back to the originating state court.”). Regardless, the Court declines to
9 exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction. While the Court has made a preliminary
10 ruling as to the scope of the parties’ contract, that is an insufficient reason to retain
11 jurisdiction. Moreover, the case is in an early stage of the proceedings, especially in light
12 of the class action nature of the matter. If Wodja refiles in state court, neither the
13 discovery nor his efforts in researching his class action issues will be wasted. Therefore,
14 the Court grants WSECU’s motion on this issue as well.
15
16

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that WSECU”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48) is

17 GRANTED, Wodja’s state law claim is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case.
18

Dated this 26th day of September, 2016.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 3