Opinion
CV 21-3764-DMG (KKx)
06-17-2021
Franklin Y. Wright v. USAA Federal Savings Bank
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [8] AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [16]
On April 1, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Franklin Wright filed his Complaint in the Ventura County Superior Court, alleging the following claims against Defendant USAA Federal Savings Bank (“USAA”) arising out of a modified auto loan agreement: (1) violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; (2) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq. [Doc. # 1-1.] On May 4, 2021, USAA removed the action to this Court, asserting the Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 over the federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a) over the state law claims. See Not. of Removal at ¶¶ 6-7 [Doc. # 1].
On May 11, 2021, USAA filed a motion to dismiss (“MTD”) Wright's second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and his third cause of action for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and RFDCPA. [Doc. # 8.] In response, Wright filed a notice of non-opposition to the MTD on June 7, 2021. [Doc. # 14.] In light of Wright's non-opposition, the Court GRANTS the MTD and DISMISSES Wright's second and third causes of action.
That leaves only his causes of action for breach of contract and for punitive damages. In his notice of non-opposition, Wright requests that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law causes of action. He notes that his Complaint pleads statutory damages of $2,000, unspecified damages for emotional distress, attorneys' fees if he seeks an attorney, and $10 in punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. See Compl. at ¶¶ 53-64. The caption of the case also notes that the demand “does not exceed $10,000.” Id. at 1. Thus, even if USAA did invoke diversity jurisdiction as a ground for removal-which it did not-it has not met its burden to establish the requisite amount-in-controversy under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a). The Court thus lacks original jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
The Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). It exercises that discretion here and REMANDS the case to the Ventura County Superior Court. Wright's motion to remand filed on June 7, 2021 [Doc # 16], is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.