Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Riddle v. Charter West Bank

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

July 26, 2018

JUSTIN E. RIDDLE, and ERIN M. RIDDLE, Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARTER WEST BANK, A Nebraska Corporation; Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

          Susan M. Bazis United States Magistrate Judge

         This 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.

         FACTS

         On 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.)

         On May 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.

         DISCUSSION

         1. Motion to Remand

         CharterWest 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.[1]

         Pursuant 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.

         2. Plaintiffs' Various Motions

         Plaintiffs 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 action.

         Plaintiffs 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.

         Plaintiffs 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 motion.

         CharterWest 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.