5:20-cv-02441
N.D. Cal.Aug 21, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Maria Consuelo Griego (California resident) alleges Patelco charged a consumer debt and retained The Tehama Law Group (TLG) and its attorneys/agents to collect it; she received a standardized collection letter and voice calls that she contends misrepresented attorney involvement and threatened a lawsuit that had not been filed.
- Plaintiff sued in Santa Clara Superior Court asserting RFDCPA and UCL claims and originally asserted an FDCPA claim as well.
- TLG removed to federal court based on the original FDCPA claim; four days later Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint dropping the FDCPA claim and leaving only state-law claims.
- Plaintiff moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); defendants opposed and also moved to dismiss the FAC.
- The district court analyzed (1) whether it had discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claim was voluntarily dropped, (2) defendants’ arguments that remand was barred or federal jurisdiction existed via the RFDCPA, and (3) the § 1367 factors (economy, convenience, fairness, comity), and concluded remand was appropriate; the dismissal motion was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand after Plaintiff voluntarily dropped the federal claim | Griego: court has discretion to remand when all federal claims are gone (Cohill/Carnegie‑Mellon principle) | TLG: §1367(c)(3) only applies when the court dismisses federal claims, not when plaintiff voluntarily withdraws them | Court: Has discretion to remand after plaintiff deletes federal claims; Carnegie‑Mellon controls — remand permitted |
| Whether a properly removed putative class action cannot be remanded | Griego: removal does not bar remand once federal claims are gone | TLG: once a putative class action is properly removed, federal court cannot remand | Court: Defendants’ cited authority (United Steel) is inapposite; proper removal does not preclude remand when federal claims are eliminated |
| Whether RFDCPA claims raise a substantial federal question supporting original federal‑question jurisdiction | Griego: RFDCPA is a state claim even if it incorporates FDCPA text; references to FDCPA do not create federal jurisdiction | TLG: RFDCPA incorporates FDCPA provisions and thus raises significant federal issues | Court: RFDCPA references to the FDCPA do not convert the state claim into a federal question; no independent basis for federal jurisdiction |
| Whether §1367 factors (judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity) favor retention or remand | Griego: factors weigh for remand—case at early stage, no discovery, comity favors state court (esp. injunctive UCL remedies) | TLG: judicial economy and manipulation concerns weigh against remand | Court: Balance favors remand (early stage, no prejudice, plaintiff’s withdrawal not unfair, comity supports state adjudication); remand granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnegie‑Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (federal court may remand a properly removed case after federal claims are eliminated)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (only cases that could have originally been filed in federal court may be removed)
- Exec. Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 24 F.3d 1545 (9th Cir. 1994) (in usual cases where federal claims are eliminated before trial, factors point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1992) (four‑factor test: economy, convenience, fairness, comity)
- Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (court should consider economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in §1367 decisions)
- Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff’s dismissal of federal claims to return to state court not inherently manipulative)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved for remand)
- Moore‑Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2009) (removal doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (Article III standing limits injunctive relief in federal court)
- Alkan v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (California’s incorporation of certain FDCPA provisions into RFDCPA does not create federal question jurisdiction)