Mamboleo v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
2:14-cv-00648
D. Ariz.Jun 3, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Elie Mamboleo moved to vacate the court's May 21, 2014 order denying his motion to remand and asked to stay his response to pending motions to dismiss. The court construed the filing as a motion for reconsideration.
- The May 21 order had held removal from Maricopa County Superior Court was proper because federal claims appeared on the face of Mamboleo's complaint, removal was timely, and both defendants joined removal.
- The complaint alleges unfair debt collection, false statements, and other conduct citing the FDCPA and FCRA; the complaint expressly invokes the FCRA (15 U.S.C. §1681p).
- Mamboleo argued the court misread his complaint and that he did not assert federal claims, asking for remand and reconsideration of the prior order.
- The court noted reconsideration is disfavored and may be granted only for manifest error, newly discovered facts or law, changed law, or failure to consider material facts previously presented; mere disagreement is insufficient.
- The court denied the motion to vacate and stay, ordered Mamboleo to file responses to the pending motions to dismiss by June 4, 2014, and denied oral argument as unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration of the May 21 order is warranted | Mamboleo says the court misread his claims and asks the court to rethink its analysis | Defendants maintain removal was proper because federal claims appear on the complaint | Denied — no showing of manifest error, new facts, changed law, or that court overlooked material facts |
| Whether the case should be remanded to state court | Mamboleo contends no federal claims are asserted; thus remand is required | Defendants point to FDCPA/FCRA allegations on the face of the complaint supporting federal-question jurisdiction | Denied — complaint facially asserts federal claims (FDCPA/FCRA), so removal was proper |
| Whether plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by stating he will not pursue federal claims | Mamboleo argues he does not intend to pursue federal claims | Defendants rely on the complaint’s text and cited federal statutes to establish federal claims exist now | Court: If plaintiff does not intend to pursue federal claims he must amend the complaint; present pleading shows federal claims |
| Whether to extend deadline to respond to motions to dismiss | Mamboleo requested a stay/extension | Defendants wanted timely responses per the case management order | Denied — plaintiff was informed at the case management conference and must respond by the specified date |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for reconsideration and relief from prior orders)
- N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1988) (reconsideration should not be used to reargue issues)
- Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581 (D. Ariz. 2003) (circumstances warranting reconsideration identified)
- Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1998) (district courts may deny oral argument when issues are fully briefed)