Robinson v. Tucker
2:12-cv-02200
D. Kan.Nov 13, 2012Background
- Robinson filed a putative class action against Scott Tucker alleging an illegal and usurious payday-loan scheme.
- Robinson obtained a $300 payday loan through unitedcashloans.com on Sept. 24, 2010, repayable $390 on Oct. 15, 2010 (APR 608.33%).
- Robinson asserts Tucker controls United Cash Loans via an alter-ego/rent-a-tribe scheme with the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
- Plaintiffs allege claims under Missouri and Kansas usury laws, Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Kansas Consumer Protection Act, and RICO.
- The court granted Tucker’s motions to dismiss and to take judicial notice, finding lack of federal jurisdiction and declining supplemental jurisdiction, dismissing without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Robinson have Article III standing to sue for RICO injuries? | Robinson alleges injury from高 interest and damages. | No injury-in-fact pled; lacks standing. | No standing; lack of injury-in-fact; no federal jurisdiction. |
| Is there federal-question jurisdiction under RICO? | RICO claim secures federal question jurisdiction. | Standing lacking defeats jurisdiction. | No original jurisdiction over RICO; dismisses federal claim. |
| Should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims? | Requests supplemental jurisdiction via §1367. | Decline once original jurisdiction is lacking. | Declines supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castaneda v. INS, 23 F.3d 1576 (10th Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional pleading standards; authority for jurisdiction requirements)
- Scheideman v. Shawnee Cnty. Comm’rs, 895 F. Supp. 279 (D. Kan. 1995) (dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when lacking jurisdiction)
- Jensen v. Johnson Cnty. Youth Baseball League, 838 F. Supp. 1437 (D. Kan. 1993) (plausibility under facial attack on jurisdictional claims)
- Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 318 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2003) (standing and ripeness in federal-question cases)
- Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 1994) (standing; injury-in-fact requirement)