Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05830/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05830-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AR Resources, Inc.
Defendant
James Faircloth
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES FAIRCLOTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

AR RESOURCES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05830-JCS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

Plaintiff James Faircloth originally brought this action in the California Superior Court for 

Contra Costa County, where it was assigned case number L19-5208, asserting federal claims 

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

(“FCRA”), as well as state law claims under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“RFDCPA”) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). 

Defendant AR Resources, Inc. removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In response to AR Resource’s first motion to dismiss, Faircloth 

filed a first amended complaint, omitting his FCRA claim and inadvertently omitting his CCRAA 

claim. The Court granted a subsequent motion by AR Resources to dismiss the remaining FDCPA 

and RFDCPA claims with leave to amend, and also allowed Faircloth to reassert his CCRAA 

claim in his second amended complaint. See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 32).1 Faircloth 

has now filed a second amended complaint asserting only a claim under the CCRAA, see 2d Am. 

Compl. (dkt. 35), and AR Resources moves to dismiss solely on the basis that Faircloth’s claim is 

preempted by the FCRA, see Mot. (dkt. 41). Neither Faircloth’s present complaint nor AR 

Resources’ present motion addresses the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

1 Faircloth v. AR Res., Inc., No. 19-cv-05830-JCS, 2020 WL 820307 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2020).

Case 3:19-cv-05830-JCS Document 42 Filed 04/20/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Faircloth’s only remaining claim is asserted under state law, and there is no indication that 

either the diversity of citizenship or the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is 

satisfied. The Court therefore likely has jurisdiction over the second amended complaint, if at all, 

only by virtue of its relationship to Faircloth’s previously-asserted federal claims under the 

supplemental jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).2 Under subsection (c) of that statute, 

however, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under 

subsection (a) if,” among other reasons, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it 

has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law 

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the [supplemental] 

jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward 

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. 

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).

The parties are therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should take the 

unusual approach of retaining jurisdiction over Faircloth’s remaining state law claim and should 

not instead remand the case to state court. The parties are ORDERED to confer no later than April 

24, 2020 to determine whether either party believes the case should remain in this Court. If both 

parties agree that the case should be remanded, they shall file a joint statement to that effect no 

later than April 27, 2020. If either or both parties oppose remand, they shall address the issue in 

the opposition brief and reply brief that remain to be filed on AR Resources’ present motion to 

dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

2 Although AR Resources’ present motion seeks dismissal based on federal preemption, a federal 

defense does not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987).

Case 3:19-cv-05830-JCS Document 42 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2