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.

Oney v. Assured Recovery LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

July 25, 2019

LORI L. ONEY and ROBERT A. ONEY, Plaintiffs,
v.
ASSURED RECOVERY LLC and MARINE CREDIT UNION, Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS STATE CLAIMS

          LYNN ADELMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On June 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This 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).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of review

         The 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) if-

(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 jurisdiction,
(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).

         B. Federal question jurisdiction

         Though 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. ...


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.