Campbell et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 6 MOTION to Remand Case to Circuit Court of Putnam County. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 12/1/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

JEFFREY W. CAMPBELL and
ROBIN CAMPBELL,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-4278

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6). For the
reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Defendant removed the present action to this Court on November 2, 2017 (ECF No. 1).
Defendant claimed in its Notice of Removal that this Court has original jurisdiction in this case
based both on federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff now
asks the Court to remand his case because Defendant has allegedly failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional requirement
for diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 6). Defendant disputes this allegation, asserting that it has
adequately proven that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional requirement, and
additionally argues that the Court has original jurisdiction over this case on the grounds of federal
question jurisdiction (ECF No. 9).
A civil action brought in state court over which federal courts have original jurisdiction
may be removed to federal court by a named defendant in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2017).

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2017). A case “arises under”
federal law “when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251,
257 (2013).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: “The Defendant filed erroneous credit
reports at the time period of servicing this loan that were in the violation of both state and federal
fair debt collection reporting act and adverse action notices requirement under [Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (“ECOA”)] and [Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)]” (ECF No. 1-1) (emphasis
added). The ECOA, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691, was enacted by Congress in 1974. Likewise, the
FCRA, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681, was enacted by Congress in 1970. As such, all claims deriving
from these statutes are inherently federal. Because Plaintiff’s claims relating to violations of the
ECOA and the FCRA are inherently federal, then, the Court FINDS that it has original jurisdiction
over these claims on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
This finding does not cover all claims presented in the current case, however. Plaintiff also
alleges violations of state law in his Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). While these claims do not fall
within the scope of federal question jurisdiction, the Court may still properly find that it has
supplemental jurisdiction over them. “[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original
jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are
so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
case or controversy . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1365 (2017). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
erroneously filed credit reports and that this action constituted breaches of both state and federal
law (ECF No. 1-1). It is apparent to the Court, from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, that
Plaintiff’s state and federal claims are part of the same case or controversy. As such, the Court

-2-

FINDS that it may properly retain jurisdiction over all remaining claims on the basis of
supplemental jurisdiction.
Because the Court FINDS that jurisdiction is proper on the grounds of federal question and
supplemental jurisdiction, the Court does not reach the issue of diversity jurisdiction at this time.
For the reasons given above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.

ENTER:

December 1, 2017

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-