Ochoa v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Background

Daniel Ochoa, who represented himself, filed the case in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County against T-Mobile USA, Inc., Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., and Assurant Solutions, Inc. His complaint asserted six causes of action: defamation; violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; breach of contract; and failure to perform under warranty.

Ochoa alleged that letters from T-Mobile and Convergent falsely stated that his account was past due and harmed his reputation. He also alleged that a replacement headset purchased from T-Mobile and provided by Assurant was represented as new but was refurbished. T-Mobile removed the case to federal court with the consent of the other defendants, asserting that the FDCPA claim provided federal jurisdiction.

Motion to Remand

Ochoa argued that the removal notice was defective because it did not explain why all defendants had not joined and because the defendants had not unanimously consented to removal. The court rejected both arguments. It found that all defendants had joined the removal notice and that, under Ninth Circuit law, one attorney’s signed statement that the other defendants consented was sufficient.

Request to Amend and Disposition

Ochoa alternatively asked for permission to amend his complaint to omit the FDCPA claim so the case could return to state court. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which generally requires courts to allow amendments when fairness requires, the court found no undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or other reason to deny the request. It was Ochoa’s first amendment request, and he sought only to delete a claim.

The court granted Ochoa’s request to amend by omitting the federal claim, but ordered the FDCPA claim dismissed instead of requiring him to file an amended complaint. Because the only federal claim had been eliminated early in the case, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—and remanded the remaining claims to the San Francisco County Superior Court. The court therefore dismissed Ochoa’s third cause of action for violation of the FDCPA and granted his motion to remand.