Tharp-Petro v. America's Car-Mart, Inc.
4:25-cv-00761
| E.D. Mo. | May 29, 2025Background
- Michelle Tharp-Petro filed a state court petition after America’s Car-Mart repossessed her 2011 Honda Civic.
- The petition asserted state-law claims for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
- Tharp-Petro sought monetary damages and return of the vehicle.
- America’s Car-Mart removed the action to federal court, arguing federal-question jurisdiction based on references to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- Tharp-Petro, representing herself, also filed several motions in state court invoking both Missouri law and the FDCPA after her initial petition.
- The federal court reviewed removal jurisdiction sua sponte to determine if federal jurisdiction was proper from the face of the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tharp-Petro’s petition raises a federal question on its face | Claims focused on Missouri state law; vague FDCPA references | Petition alleges FDCPA claims, establishing federal question | No federal question; references to the FDCPA are insufficient |
| Effect of FDCPA references in post-petition motions | Cited FDCPA in later motions | Post-petition references supplement jurisdiction | Only the face of the petition counts; later motions irrelevant |
| Whether federal law completely preempts state-law claims | Lawsuit is under state-law causes of action | FDCPA fully preempts state-law claims | FDCPA does not completely preempt the asserted state claims |
| Appropriate remedy when federal jurisdiction is lacking | Remand to state court | Retain case in federal court | Remand is required when federal jurisdiction is absent |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule; plaintiff is master of claim, limiting federal jurisdiction to cases presenting federal questions on the face of the complaint)
- In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613 (all doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court)
- Cent. Iowa Power Coop. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904 (state law claims that do not depend on resolution of substantial federal law questions do not support removal jurisdiction)
- Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470 (artful pleading doctrine and complete preemption exceptions to well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (listing federal statutes that trigger complete preemption)