United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. GERRARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on defendant CharterWest
Bank's objection (filing 54) to the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation and Order (filing
53) recommending that CharterWest's motion to remand
(filing 27) be denied. The Court will overrule the
objection, and will also take this opportunity to do some
to Remand CharterWest's argument in support of its motion
to remand was that the Court lost subject-matter jurisdiction
when the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City was dismissed as
a defendant. Filing 28 at 2-3. The Magistrate
Judge rejected that argument, because the Court retained
supplemental jurisdiction over the Riddles' state-law
claim even after the federal claims and party had been
dismissed. Filing 53 at 2; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367;
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).
conclusion was entirely correct,  and CharterWest doesn't
argue otherwise. Instead, CharterWest's objection
advances a different argument: that the Court should exercise
its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Filing
54 at 2-5; see Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio,
Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639-40 (2009). That might have been
a good argument to make in connection with the Court's
ruling on CharterWest's motion to dismiss. See filing 21.
But the Court is not persuaded, comity aside, that judicial
economy, convenience, and fairness are served by punting the
Riddles' claim back to state court several months later.
See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,
350 (1988). And in any event, CharterWest can't present
an argument through an objection that wasn't made to the
Magistrate Judge. See Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharm., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012).
Court takes this opportunity to observe, however, that the
docket for this case has become far too cluttered, primarily
because of the Riddles. The Riddles have electronically filed
no fewer than 11 "statements," primarily (but not
exclusively) containing arguments and evidence that,
according to the Riddles, substantiate their claims on the
merits. See filing 41; filing 43; filing 44; filing 45;
filing 46; filing 47; filing 48; filing 49; filing 50; filing
51; filing 62. But there are a couple of problems with that.
the Court notes from the Riddles' filings that there
appears to be some confusion about what claims are still
pending. The Riddles' claims against the Federal Reserve
were dismissed. Filing 21 at 19-20. The Riddles' Fair
Credit Reporting Act claim was dismissed. Filing 21 at 14-16.
No. amount of additional evidence or argument will change the
fact that even if the Fair Credit Reporting Act was violated,
Congress didn't provide a remedy for that. See filing 21
at 14-16. The Riddles would be better served by focusing
their efforts on the only claim that remains pending: whether
CharterWest tortiously interfered with their business
relationship with another prospective lender. See filing 21
more importantly, the Riddles' filings confuse the
record, because it's not entirely clear to the Court-nor
would it be clear to any reviewing court on appeal-what
filings are meant to support or oppose what motions. Evidence
and argument should be presented in support of, or opposition
to, motions to the Court. They should be clearly designated
as such, and they should be consolidated and filed pursuant
to the briefing schedules dictated by the Court's local
rules. See NECivR 7.1. Neither the Court nor an opposing
party should be in the position of having to sort through a
dozen filings and guess at which ones are meant to support or
respond to a pending motion.
it's simply not appropriate for the Riddles to litter the
docket with every new piece of evidence as they find it, or
every new idea they have right after they have it, as if this
was some sort of argument in a Facebook comment thread. The
way this works is, the parties gather their evidence and
argument over the course of discovery, and present them to
the Court in support of an appropriate motion, such as a
motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. That
can take time and patience, but it's the only way for a
court to fully and fairly consider the parties' claims.
to make sure that the record is clean, the Court will direct
the Clerk of the Court to strike the filings that, in the
Court's assessment, were not authorized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court's local rules. The
Riddles are encouraged, in the future, to confine their
filings to notices authorized by those rules and supporting
or opposing motions in accord with established procedures.
CharterWest Bank's objection (filing 54) is overruled.
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation ...