Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00648/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Elie K. Mamboleo, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00648-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Elie Mamboleo has filed a motion to remand. Doc. 17. Defendant Wells 

Fargo Bank NA has filed a response in which Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. has joined. 

Docs. 22, 23. No party has requested oral argument. The Court will deny the motion. 

Plaintiff commenced this action on February 27, 2014, in Maricopa County 

Superior Court. Doc. 1-1 at 26. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to assert state law claims 

as well as claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

(“FDCPA”), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”). Id.

at 29. Chex Systems filed a notice of removal on March 28, 2014, to which Wells Fargo 

consented. Doc. 1. 

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the 

district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where 

such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s complaint appears to assert claims under two federal statutes, 

the FDCPA and the FCRA. Doc. 1-1 at 26-32. Plaintiff does not deny in his motion that 

Case 2:14-cv-00648-DJH Document 28 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

he asserts claims under these statutes. Because the Court would have original jurisdiction 

over these claims (see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.”), they can be removed. The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over state law claims that “are so related to claims in the action within [the Court’s] 

original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(a). Plaintiff’s state and federal claims appear to arise out of the same facts. 

 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) provides that the “notice of removal of a civil action or 

proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of 

the initial pleading[.]” Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on February 27, 2014, and the 

notice of removal was filed less than 30 days later on March 28, 2014. Thus, 

Defendants’ removal was timely. 

 Finally, both Defendants joined the removal. Section 1446(2)(A) states that “all 

defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the 

removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(2)(A). Chex Systems’ notice of removal notes 

that Wells Fargo consented. Doc. 1 at 3. Wells Fargo’s response to Plaintiff’s motion 

confirms that it consented to removal. Doc. 22 at 6. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(b)(2) as requiring a “signed joint paper for removal,” but that provision deals with 

diversity of citizenship not federal question jurisdiction. The Court therefore concludes 

that this action was properly removed. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 17) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action pending a ruling on the motion to 

remand (Doc. 24) is also denied. 

 Dated this 21st day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00648-DJH Document 28 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 2