Ferkler v. RCN Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 104209 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2011)
Facts: Plaintiff alleged he was erroneously billed by his cable service provider, RCN Corporations, Inc. ("RCN"). Plaintiff and RCN allegedly resolved the issue and Plaintiff made a payment for full and final payment on the account. Plaintiff asserted that despite RCN's knowledge that the account was paid in full, it forwarded the account to two different collection agencies who thereafter supplied the CRAs with false or erroneous information. Plaintiff filed suit against RCN and NCO Financial Systems, Inc. ("NCO"), one of the collection agencies. NCO removed the case to federal court alleging federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. NCO contends that Plaintiff's allegation that NCO provided the CRAs false or erroneous information is a claim asserted under § 1681s-2 of the FCRA. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand arguing that his complaint made no mention of any violation of a federal statue, but rather relied exclusively on Pennsylvania consumer protections laws and, as such, there was no basis for the Court to assert federal question jurisdiction. In response, NCO asserted that "[w]hen the FCRA and its proscriptions [are] examined along-side plaintiff's averment that NCO supplied false and erroneous information to three reporting agencies, it is irrefutable that plaintiff's action against NCO is one for an alleged violation of the FCRA." The court found NCO's assumption that Plaintiff must be pursuing a federal claim insufficient to establish ground for federal jurisdiction.
Removal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove a civil action originally filed in state court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. The "well pleaded complaint" rule prescribes that federal question jurisdiction exists only where an issue of federal law appears on the face of the complaint and the federal law under which the claim arises must be a direct and essential element of plaintiff's case. The well pleaded complaint rule is subject to the "artful pleading doctrine" whereby a defendant will not be denied a federal forum when the plaintiff's complaint contains a federal claim "artfully pled" as a state law claim. The artful pleading doctrine allows for removal when (1) the state law that serves as the basis of plaintiff's complaint is completely preempted by federal law, or (2) a federal question, not pleaded in plaintiff's complaint, is nonetheless both intrinsic and central to plaintiff's cause of action. The Court found that Plaintiff's well-pleaded Complaint made no mention of a federal statute and, on its face, failed to assert a federal question. While the FCRA could apply to the facts alleged, Plaintiff clearly decided to base his claims exclusively on state law and in state court. NCO's assumption that Plaintiff must be pursuing a federal claim was insufficient to meet its burden of establishing grounds for federal jurisdiction.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
