United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
LORI L. ONEY and ROBERT A. ONEY, Plaintiffs,
ASSURED RECOVERY LLC and MARINE CREDIT UNION, Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS STATE CLAIMS
ADELMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
17, 2019, Defendants Assured Recovery LLC (“Assured
Recovery”) and Marine Credit Union each filed motions
to dismiss Wisconsin state law claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 16; ECF No. 19. I deny
Defendants' motions for the reasons stated below.
action stems from the repossession of a car belonging to
Plaintiffs Lori Oney and Robert Oney. See ECF No. 1
at ¶¶ 9-30. On May 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a
complaint against Marine Credit Union, an institution the
Plaintiffs engaged to refinance their purchase of the car,
and Assured Recovery, which Plaintiffs allege acted as an
agent of Marine Credit Union in the repossession of the car.
See id. at ¶¶ 4-8. In their complaint,
Plaintiffs raise five claims: (1) Violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against
Assured Recovery; (2) Illegal repossession and debt
collection under Wisconsin law against both Defendants; (3)
Civil theft under Wisconsin law against both Defendants; (4)
Conversion under Wisconsin law against both Defendants; and
(5) Breach of the peace under Wisconsin law against Marine
Credit Union. Id. at ¶¶ 31-55. In their
respective motions, Defendants argue that I should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Standard of review
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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 under Article III of the United States
Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (emphasis added). Such
supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve
the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
Id. The district courts
may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a)
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (emphasis added).
Federal question jurisdiction
neither Defendant challenges federal question jurisdiction, I
raise the issue because it is “the obligation of the
district court… to be alert to jurisdictional
requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp.,
L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866
(2004) (citing Bender v. ...