Tashombe v. Truist Bank
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-00402
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Tashombe v. Truist Bank, Judge Corley ordered Truist to explain why the case should not return to state court because the complaint alleges only breach of contract.
Truist Bank must explain why the federal court should retain the case. Taj Tashombe's case remained subject to a possible remand to the San Francisco Superior Court; the provided opinion does not state that remand was ultimately ordered.
What happened
Taj Tashombe sued Truist Bank in California state court, alleging breach of contract. Truist removed the case to federal court from the San Francisco Superior Court's Small Claims Division, arguing that the dispute involved the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction generally must appear from the plaintiff's complaint itself. The complaint referred only to a state-law breach-of-contract claim and did not mention the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Truist's belief that the claim might involve credit reporting was not enough to establish federal jurisdiction.
Judge Corley ordered Truist to show in writing by February 22, 2022, why the case should not be sent back to the San Francisco Superior Court. The opinion did not itself order remand. Tashombe was not represented by counsel and was not required to respond to Truist's motion for a more definite statement.
The detailed version
- Tashombe v. Truist Bank · No. 3:22-cv-00402
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Taj Tashombe brought a case against Truist Bank in the Small Claims Division of the San Francisco Superior Court. The complaint alleged a state-law breach-of-contract claim. Truist removed the action to federal court and relied on federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Jurisdictional issue
A defendant may remove a state-court case only when the federal court would have original jurisdiction over it. Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a federal issue to appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. A federal defense, or a defendant's expectation that federal law may become relevant, ordinarily does not create federal-question jurisdiction. The defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing that removal is proper.
Truist argued that the claim implicated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. It pointed to its records, an alleged call from Tashombe disputing credit reporting concerning his LightStream account, and Tashombe's subpoena requests. Truist also asserted that the claim appeared to challenge credit reporting. But the court noted that the complaint did not mention the Fair Credit Reporting Act and alleged only that Truist breached a contract. The court also noted that Truist's later motion for a more definite statement characterized the complaint as containing only the breach-of-contract allegation.
Court's action
The court ordered Truist to show cause—meaning to explain in writing—why the action should not be remanded, or returned, to the San Francisco Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Truist was required to respond by February 22, 2022. The court did not yet order remand in this opinion. Tashombe was not represented by counsel and was not required to respond to Truist's motion for a more definite statement.
Disposition
Order to show cause issued; no final remand ruling appears in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.