Favors v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:18-cv-03187
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Favors v. Chase Bank, Judge Ericksen granted in part and denied in part Chase Bank’s dismissal motion, dismissed several counts, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over two state-law counts.
Joseph Anthony Favors; Chase Bank; and, as noted in the opinion, Mrs. W. White and Alltran Financial LP, whose federal-law claims remained to be litigated.
What happened
In Favors v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., Joseph Anthony Favors challenged claims involving federal law and breach of contract. A magistrate judge recommended granting Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss, and Favors objected while asking to amend his complaint. The opinion also notes that some federal claims against other defendants remained to be litigated.
The court denied Favors’s request to amend at that time because he had not filed a motion or provided the proposed changes. The court said he could seek permission later by filing the required motion and proposed amended complaint. It also rejected his objection concerning the venue for his breach-of-contract claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
Judge Joan N. Ericksen adopted the recommendation and ruled that Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Count 1 was dismissed with prejudice; Counts 2, 4, and 5 were dismissed without prejudice; and Counts 3 and 6 were dismissed without prejudice because the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Favors v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. · No. 0:18-cv-03187
- Joan Ericksen
- Aug. 9, 2019
Background
Joseph Anthony Favors, representing himself, sued Chase Bank and other defendants. The Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, a United States magistrate judge, issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court grant Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss. Favors objected to that recommendation and asked for permission to amend his complaint.
The opinion states that Favors wanted to add factual information concerning his Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, including allegedly incorrect statute numbers. He also sought to amend the complaint to explain why the federal court was the appropriate venue for his breach-of-contract claims. The opinion notes that federal claims against “Mrs. W. White” and “Alltran Financial LP” remained to be litigated.
Amendment request
The court denied Favors’s request to amend at that time. It explained that he had not filed a motion to amend and had not specified the proposed amendments. The court stated that he could later seek permission to amend by filing a motion accompanied by a copy of the proposed amended complaint.
The court treated Favors’s request concerning the venue for his breach-of-contract claims as an objection to the recommendation rather than as a separate amendment request. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the court overruled that objection and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.
Ruling
After conducting a de novo review, meaning an independent review of the challenged matters, Judge Joan N. Ericksen adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court ordered that Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part:
- Count 1: Dismissed with prejudice. - Counts 2, 4, and 5: Dismissed without prejudice. - Counts 3 and 6: The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and those counts were dismissed without prejudice.
The opinion does not explain in detail why each individual count was dismissed; it adopts the reasoning in the Report and Recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.