Rutherford v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:2013cv00239 - Document 26 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 17 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/18/2013. (RKR)

Download PDF
Rutherford v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SHAINA A. RUTHERFORD, vs. Case No. 2:13-cv-239-29DNF WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff s Motion for Remand (Doc. #17) filed on April 26, 2013. Defendant failed to file a response, and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. Plaintiff Shaina A. Rutherford (plaintiff) filed her Complaint (Doc. #2) against defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (defendant) in state court for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(3). The timely Notice of Removal (Doc. #1) asserts federal question jurisdiction as the basis for removal. Plaintiff now seeks a remand to state court because both state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over FDCPA claims, and no novel, compelling or overriding issues exist that require a federal court to preempt plaintiff s state court forum of choice. The Supreme Court (Doc. #17, p. 3.) has succinctly summarized the removal principles: Dockets.Justia.com As a general matter, defendants may remove to the appropriate federal district court any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The propriety of removal thus depends on whether the case originally could have been filed in federal court. The district courts have original jurisdiction under the federal question statute over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. § 1331. It is long settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law. City of Chi. v. Int l. Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997)(citations and quotation marks omitted). The Complaint (Doc. #2) filed in state court sets forth a claim under the FDCPA, and therefore the claim clearly arises under federal law, and a federal court would have original jurisdiction over such a claim. U.S.C. § 1692k(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 15 This case was therefore properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), unless an act of Congress provides otherwise. There is no provision of the FDCPA which precludes removal of such a case to federal court. While a state court has concurrent jurisdiction to hear a FDCPA claim, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), this does not preclude removal. E.g., Breuer v. Jim s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691 (2003); Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012). Additionally, plaintiff s choice of a state forum does not preclude defendant from removing the case. While as master of her complaint plaintiff need not assert a federal claim, having done so plaintiff subjected herself to the possibility that 2 defendant would remove the case to federal court. Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 165. Int l. Coll. of There is no basis for the court to abstain from its virtually unflagging obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 541 U.S. 1, 21 (2004). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff s Motion for Remand (Doc. #17) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this June, 2013. Copies: Counsel of record 3 18th day of

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.