| Venue: | US Dist. Ct. E. Dist. CA |
| Facts: | Mazda wants its money, but maybe they harrassed Sparrow. |
| Posture: | Suit in state court, defendant removes to federal court, adds on some counter-claims. |
| Issue: | Since the countercoaims are not mandatory, does this court have supplementary jurisdiction over them? |
| Holding: | No. Counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice. |
| Rule: | Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims. |
| Reasoning: | The fact that Sparrow has a debt is separate from the practices that Mazda was using to collect that debt. And we don't want people to think that suing under a debtor protection statute will invite a judgment against them-- that defeats the purpose of the whole thing. We could exercise jurisdiction here, because both parties' claims spring from a common set of facts, but § 1367(c)(4) tells us we don't have to, and the interest in preserving the spirit of FDCPA overrides the interest in hearing these claims just now. |
| Dicta: | |