United States District Court, D. Nebraska
JUSTIN E. RIDDLE, and ERIN M. RIDDLE, Plaintiffs,
CHARTER WEST BANK, A Nebraska Corporation; Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
M. Bazis United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant CharterWest
Bank's Motion to Remand (Filing No. 27), as well
as Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (Filing No.
31), Motion to Compel (Filing No. 33), Motion
To Remove Non-Party from Case Information (Filing No.
34), “Motion to Compel Defense to Provide a Legal
Theory for Defense” (Filing No. 36), and
Request for Oral Argument (Filing No. 52). For the
reasons set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that
the Motion to Remand be denied. The undersigned will also
order that Plaintiffs' motions be denied.
December 13, 2017, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se,
filed suit against CharterWest Bank
(“CharterWest”) and Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City (“Federal Reserve”) in the District
Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, alleging (1) breach of
fiduciary duty; (2) tortious interference with a business
relationship; (3) fraud; (4) violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681
et seq.; (5) “willful noncompliance;”
and (6) conspiracy. (Filing No. 1.) On January 16,
2018, Federal Reserve removed the action to this Court
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 632, which provides for original
federal jurisdiction over, and removal of, civil actions
filed in state court which involve “any Federal Reserve
bank.” (Filing No. 1.)
8, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against
Federal Reserve in their entirety and terminated Federal
Reserve as a party. (Filing No. 21.) The Court also
dismissed all claims against CharterWest, except
Plaintiffs' claim against CharterWest for tortious
interference with a business relationship. CharterWest has
now moved the Court to remand this action back to the
District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska.
Motion to Remand
filed its Motion to Remand (Filing No. 27) on June
25, 2018, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction
following Federal Reserve's dismissal from the action.
CharterWest maintains that because no federal claims remain,
and because this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction,
remand is warranted.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “in any civil action of which
the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district
courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other
claims that are so related to claims in the action within
such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The dismissal of the federal claims does not necessarily
preclude this Court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining tortious interference claim. Thus,
CharterWest is incorrect in its assertion that this Court no
longer has jurisdiction over this suit. Accordingly, the
undersigned will recommend that CharterWest's Motion to
Remand be denied in light of the arguments presented by
CharterWest in its motion.
Plaintiffs' Various Motions
request that Federal Reserve stop receiving electronic
notifications regarding this case because Federal Reserve is
no longer a party. (Filing No. 34.) This request
will be denied as final judgment has not been entered in this
further request that the Court sanction CharterWest for
arguing in its motion to dismiss that Plaintiffs' claims
are barred by res judicata. (Filing No.
31.) This request will be denied. There is no indication
that CharterWest presented this argument in bad faith.
also contend that sanctions are warranted because CharterWest
has not provided initial disclosures. (Filing No.
31.) Plaintiffs have moved to compel production of these
disclosures. (Filing No. 33.) The Court's
Initial Progression Order required that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1) disclosures be served by June 18, 2018.
(Filing No. 25.) However, CharterWest filed its
Motion to Remand on June 25, 2018, and evidently decided not
to supply initial disclosures pending a ruling on that
argues that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Motion
to Compel should be denied because the parties did not meet
and confer regarding the initial disclosure deadline before
Plaintiffs filed their motions. CharterWest has also advised