Franklin Y. Wright v. USAA Federal Savings Bank, 2:21-cv-03764

Pro se plaintiff Franklin Y. Wright filed suit in Ventura County Superior Court (Apr. 1, 2021) asserting claims arising from a modified auto loan: FCRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Defendant USAA Federal Savings Bank removed to federal court, invoking federal-question jurisdiction over the federal statutes and supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
USAA moved to dismiss Wright’s second cause (implied covenant) and third cause (FCRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA).
Wright filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss and asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.
The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the second and third causes of action, leaving only state-law breach of contract and punitive-damages claims.
The court concluded diversity jurisdiction was not established (complaint caps relief at $10,000 and pleads only modest statutory/emotional damages), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), remanded the case to state court, and denied Wright’s remand motion as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to dismiss implied covenant and statutory claims	Wright did not oppose dismissal	USAA argued those claims were legally deficient and sought dismissal	Court granted USAA's MTD; dismissed second and third causes of action
Whether federal court should retain jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims	Wright asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand	USAA relied on federal-question jurisdiction for the removed action and asserted supplemental jurisdiction over state claims	After dismissing federal claims, court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under §1367(c) and remanded to state court
Whether diversity jurisdiction supports removal (amount-in-controversy)	Wright’s complaint limits recovery (caption notes demand ≤ $10,000; damages alleged small)	USAA did not invoke diversity nor prove amount in controversy	Court found amount-in-controversy not established and noted USAA did not rely on diversity jurisdiction