Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180731_0005278.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:14:26+00:00

Document:
FindACase | McClellon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
McClellon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) and Plaintiff's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 17). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 17) for the reasons explained herein.
This is an action under the Uniform Commercial Code (4.2.005 to 925) and Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020, based upon Defendant's blatant self-dealing and other intentional negligent misconduct in conversion, freezing, pooling, otherwise manipulating Plaintiff's funds without Plaintiff's authorization.
Plaintiff further allege that the Defendant violated the Washington State Securities Act, Regulation E and committed the tort of negligence in handling of Plaintiff's funds. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and all other damages (i.e., direct and consequential damages) allowed by law, and payment of costs and attorneys' fees.
(Id. at 1.) McClellon also alleged that Wells Fargo's action prevented him from purchasing 14, 829.46 Ethereum. (Id. at 3). On June 12, 2018, Wells Fargo removed the case to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Wells Fargo moved to dismiss based on res judicata, asserting that the claims were already resolved in arbitration. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) In response, McClellon filed a motion to remand (Dkt. No. 17).
A party to a civil action brought in state court may remove that action to federal court if the district court would have had original jurisdiction at the time of both commencement of the action and removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 14B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3723 (4th ed. 2013). Once removed, the case can be remanded to state court for either lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or defects in the removal procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co, 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1441
 § 3723
 § 1447
 v.