Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05240/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05240-2/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

WALLIS H. CLARK III dba CARMET 

TRADING CO. & CARMET SCIENTIFIC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

FLA CARD SERVICES, N.A., LINDA BUCK, 

TONY GREEN, I.C. SYSTEM, BETH 

BROWN and DOES 1-10 incl., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-5240 SBA 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

Plaintiff Wallis H. Clark III dba Carmet Trading Co. & Carmet Scientific (“Plaintiff”), 

acting pro se, commenced the instant civil action in Sonoma County Superior Court against 

various parties, including Bank of America. FIA Card Services, Inc., N.A. (“FIA”), which 

allegedly was sued erroneously as Bank of America, removed the action under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1441 on the basis that certain of Plaintiff’s causes of action arise under the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 

(Docket 1.) On June 3, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part FIA’s motion to 

dismiss. (Docket 41.) The Court, inter alia, dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA and 

FCRA, with leave to amend. (Id.) Plaintiff had until June 24, 2010, to file his amended 

complaint. The Court’s Order warned that the failure to timely amend “will result in the 

dismissal of the dismissed claims with prejudice.” (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff did not file an amended 

complaint. Instead, on July 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Notice of Motion and Motion 

Requesting Removal of Action to Superior Court. In his motion, Plaintiff states that because 

all federal claims have been dismissed, the case should be remanded to state court. 

Case 4:09-cv-05240-SBA Document 46 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or not 

the parties raise the issue. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 229 (1990); 

United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). 

This rule applies equally to removed actions. See Harris v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 

26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Although no objection was made to removal, we must still 

address whether federal jurisdiction exists.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“[i]f at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 

shall be remanded.”); Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 

F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (“we have held that the district court must remand if it lacks 

jurisdiction”). 

When the federal claim that served as the basis for removal is eliminated, either through 

dismissal by the court or by a plaintiff amending his or her complaint, federal courts may 

decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action and 

exercise its discretion to remand them to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. 

Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (court may sua sponte exercise 

discretion and dismiss state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Here, the only remaining 

claim in this action is Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract. Given the lack of any 

federal claims, coupled with the early stage of the litigation, the Court exercises its discretion 

and remands the action to the state court from which it was removed. See Carnegie-Mellon 

Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351(1988) (“When the single federal-law claim in the action was 

eliminated at an early stage of the litigation, the District Court had a powerful reason to choose 

not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.”); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 

(9th Cir. 1991) (“it is generally preferable for a district court to remand remaining pendant 

claims to state court.”). Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is REMANDED to the Superior 

Court of California, County of Sonoma, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk shall close 

the file and terminate any pending matters in this Court’s docket. 

Case 4:09-cv-05240-SBA Document 46 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 20, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-05240-SBA Document 46 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CLARK et al, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BANK OF AMERICA et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-05240 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on July 21, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Wallis H. Clark 

3852 Montecito Avenue 

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 

Dated: July 21, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-05240-SBA Document 46 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 4