Seaway Bank and Trust Company v. MVF Properties LLC et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 11/30/2017: GRANTING 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to take all appropriate steps to effectuate the remand of this case back to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SEAWAY BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MVF PROPERTIES, LLC, JAMES C.
FAZIO, FAZIO AUTOMOTIVE INC.,
AMANDA MAY REITZ,
JOHN DOES A THROUGH N and
JANE DOES A THROUGH N,

Case No. 17-CV-578-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
This case, originally filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, was
removed to this Court on April 24, 2017 by former Defendant Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §
1819(b)(2)(A), which provides that all actions in which the FDIC is a party
are “deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.” (Docket #1). On
October 11, 2017, the Court granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss the
counterclaims pending against it. (Docket #20). The Court also dismissed
the FDIC from the case. Id. The remaining claims arise under state law. See
(Docket #4).
Plaintiff Seaway Bank and Trust Company (“Seaway”) has now filed
a motion to remand this case to Milwaukee County Circuit Court. (Docket
#28). In support of its motion, Seaway states that remand is an appropriate
exercise of this Court’s discretion because “the federal-law claims have
dropped out, and the remand request doesn’t involve a plaintiff who

initially sought removal only to later request remand as a means of forumshopping.” Id. at 2 (citing Carnegie-Mellon University, et al. v. Maurice B.
Cohill, Jr., 484 U.S. 343 (1988)). The remaining Defendants have not opposed
Seaway’s motion.
The supplemental-jurisdiction statute provides that a district court
“may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if
the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “When federal claims drop out of the case, leaving
only state-law claims, the district court has broad discretion to decide
whether to keep the case or relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the
state-law claims.” RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prod. N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 478
(7th Cir. 2012). The presumption is in favor of relinquishment. Id. 479.
In light of the lack of opposition by any Defendant to Plaintiff’s
motion, and bearing in mind the considerations of judicial economy, the
Court finds it appropriate to remand this case back to Milwaukee County
Circuit Court to resolve the remaining state law claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Docket #28) be
and the same is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
take all appropriate steps to effectuate the remand of this case back to the
Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30th day of November, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2