Goldensoph, Creighton et al v. F.S. Mediation Group et al
ORDER granting #7 Motion to Remand. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/11/2015. (kwf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CREIGHTON R. GOLDENSOPH
and DIANE R. GOLDENSOPH,
OPINION AND ORDER
FIFTH THIRD BANK,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiffs Creighton R. Goldensoph and Diane R. Goldensoph filed this lawsuit in the
Circuit Court for Dane County. In their original complaint, plaintiffs contended that F.S.
Mediation Group violated their rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1601, and that both F.S. Mediation Group and that defendant Fifth Third Bank
violated a Wisconsin consumer protection law, Wis. Stat. § 427.104. Defendant Fifth Third
Bank removed the case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
A few weeks later, before either defendant filed an answer, plaintiffs filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of their claims against F.S. Mediation Group, leaving plaintiffs with only
their state law claim against defendant Fifth Third Bank. Dkt. #6. Plaintiffs also moved to
remand the case to the Circuit Court for Dane County. Dkt. #7. Because there are no
remaining federal questions, plaintiffs’ motion for remand will be granted.
Plaintiffs first argue that this court lacks jurisdiction because defendant’s removal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 was improper. Plaintiffs say that because they had not asserted a
federal claim against defendant Fifth Third Bank, it had no right to remove the case to
E.g., Shepp v. Columbia College Chicago, No. 06-C-1069, 2006 WL
1156387, at *2 (N.D. Ill. April 27, 2006) (when removing defendant “is not subject to any
federal claims[, it] ha[s] no right to initiate removal proceedings.”); Regalado v. City of
Chicago, 946 F. Supp. 560, 563 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (“[T]he absence of any stake whatever on
[the removing defendant’s] part in having the purely state law claims against it adjudicated
in a federal forum leads this Court to conclude that the reference in Section 1441(a) to
‘removal by the defendant or the defendants’ does not embrace a removal in this case by the
[removing defendant] alone.”).
Ordinarily, “[b]ecause it implicates federal jurisdiction,” the first question I would
address is “the propriety of removal . . . . ” Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524,
529 (7th Cir. 2004). However, in this case, it is clear that even if removal was proper, the
case should be remanded to state court. All that remains is a state law claim; the court has
jurisdiction over this claim only by exercising supplemental jurisdiction, which is a “doctrine
of discretion.” Wright v. Associated Insurance Companies Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th
Cir. 1994). “[A] district court should consider and weigh the factors of judicial economy,
convenience, fairness and comity in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendent
state-law claims.” Id. Under most circumstances, if “all federal claims are dismissed before
trial, the balance of these factors will point to declining to exercise jurisdiction . . . . ” Id.
See also Sharps Electronics Corp v. Metro. Life Insurance Co., 578 F.3d 505, 514 (7th Cir.
2009) (same); Leister v. Dovetail, Inc., 546 F.3d 875, 882 (7th Cir. 2008) (“When the
federal claim in a case drops out before trial, the presumption is that the district judge will
relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental claim to the state courts.”). This case is in its
early stages. Although defendant argues that the case’s lack of merit is clear because it may
be disposed of on defendant’s statute of limitations argument, it concedes that this argument
requires evidence outside the pleadings that must be presented in a motion for summary
judgment. I see no reason why this court should expend resources ruling on such a motion
in a case involving no federal law claims and nondiverse parties.
Accordingly, the case will be remanded to state court.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion filed by plaintiffs Creighton R. Goldensoph and
Diane R. Goldensoph to remand this case to state court, dkt. #7, is GRANTED. This case
is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin. The clerk of court is
directed to return the record to the state court.
Entered this 11th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
BARBARA B. CRABB
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?