SAWYER v. CAMPUS USA CREDIT UNION
1:21-cv-00085
| N.D. Fla. | Mar 18, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Jessie Mae Sawyer sued Campus USA Credit Union after alleging: blocked access to a promotional online loan application (Dec. 14, 2017), unexpected debit-card transaction timing (Sept. 4–8, 2019) that caused a missed Lyft payment, and repeated security blocks/poor call-center handling and unexplained “irregular transactions.”
- Sawyer originally filed in Florida state court asserting various state-law claims; Campus USA removed asserting federal-question jurisdiction and Sawyer later abandoned federal claims in a Second Amended Complaint leaving only state-law claims.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; Sawyer opposed that motion.
- The magistrate judge concluded only state-law claims remained and recommended the district court decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismiss the case without prejudice.
- The recommendation also would terminate Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss as moot and toll applicable state statutes of limitations for 30 days after dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), unless state law provides longer tolling.
- Sawyer seeks monetary relief (approximately $113,797) plus fees; the magistrate judge found resolution of these state-law claims better left to state courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims | Sawyer opposed dismissal and sought adjudication of her claims in federal court | Campus USA argued jurisdiction should not be retained because federal claims were abandoned and only state claims remain | Court recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismissing the case without prejudice |
| Whether Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint should be decided or terminated as moot | Sawyer opposed termination and wanted her claims heard | Campus USA’s motion became moot once federal jurisdiction was absent and the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction | Court recommended terminating the Motion to Dismiss as moot |
| Whether dismissal should preserve plaintiffs’ statute-of-limitations rights | Sawyer sought damages and implicitly sought preservation of claims | Campus USA did not prevent equitable tolling under § 1367(d) | Court recommended tolling the state-law limitations period for 30 days after dismissal (or longer if state law provides) |
Key Cases Cited
- Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 667 F.2d 1327 (11th Cir. 1982) (federal courts may only exercise jurisdiction prescribed by Congress)
- Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1940) (limitations on federal jurisdiction)
- Marshall v. Gibsons Prods., Inc., 584 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1978) (jurisdictional principles cited regarding limited federal power)
- Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cty., 22 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1994) (explaining discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367)
- Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733 (11th Cir. 2006) (any one § 1367(c) factor is sufficient to permit dismissal of supplemental claims)
- Hardy v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 954 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1992) (state courts are the final expositors of state law)
- England v. La. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1964) (federal abstention principle recognizing state courts’ role in interpreting state law)