Miller v. P.S.C., Inc.

Full title: KIMBERLY MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. P.S.C., INC., d/b/a PUGET SOUND…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Jan 16, 2018

CASE NO. C17-5864 RBL (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. C17-5864 RBL

01-16-2018

KIMBERLY MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. P.S.C., INC., d/b/a PUGET SOUND COLLECTIONS, and DOES ONE THROUGH TEN, Defendants.

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND IN PART

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in Part [Dkt. 8]. Plaintiffs' allege claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)¹ and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) for alleged unfair and deceptive debt collection practices by Defendants. Defendants timely removed this action from Pierce County Superior Court, invoking this Court's federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs' contend that their WCPA claims raise novel or complex issues of state law, and that this Court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiffs' request that the Court remand their WCPA claims and stay proceedings on the FDCPA claim until the Pierce County Superior Court resolves the state law claims. Defendants dispute that any of the § 1367(c) factors justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and argue that remanding the case in part would be an unfair and wasteful use of judicial resources.

1 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

The Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.² See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). "While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs values 'of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.'" Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations omitted).

2 The parties do not dispute that this Court has jurisdiction over the FDCPA claim, or that the WCPA claims are based on the same facts and allegations as the FDCPA claim. --------

After careful review of the parties' filings and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court declines to remand the state law claims back to Pierce County Superior Court. To the extent that the lawsuit actually raises novel issues of state law, the Court is capable of certifying a question to the Washington Supreme Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in Part [Dkt. 8] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 16^th day of January, 2018.

/s/_________

Ronald B. Leighton

United States District Judge