Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Cunningham Machanic x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Consumer Credit | Massachusetts
Order To Show Cause
District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE entered. The parties are ORDERED to show cause by July 1, 2026 why this matter should not be remanded to Essex Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Boniface v. Viliena, 145 F.4th 98, 109 (1st Cir. 2025) ("Courts 'have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.'" (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006))). Invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, defendant William Fletcher removed the case to this Court on the grounds that he would "raise counterclaims, especially under the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978, and defenses which raise questions of federal law, as does the federal nature of the regulatory scheme governing the Plaintiff [Eastern] Bank." ECF 1 . But federal question jurisdiction "cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Nor can federal question jurisdiction "rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim." Id. ("[A] federal counterclaim, even when compulsory, does not establish 'arising under' jurisdiction."). Since Fletcher sought removal based on his anticipated counterclaims and defenses, and Eastern Bank does not assert any federal law claims, it appears that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 25-72. It also appears that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Eastern Bank and at least some of the defendants are citizens of Massachusetts. Id. ¶¶ 1-5. Accordingly, the parties should explain whether, and if so, why, they nonetheless believe that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. (Currie, Haley)
The parties are ORDERED to show cause by July 1, 2026 why this matter should not be remanded to Essex Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Boniface v. Viliena, 145 F.4th 98, 109 (1st Cir. 2025) ("Courts 'have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.'" (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006))). Invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, defendant William Fletcher removed the case to this Court on the grounds that he would "raise counterclaims, especially under the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978, and defenses which raise questions of federal law, as does the federal nature of the regulatory scheme governing the Plaintiff [Eastern] Bank." ECF 1 .
But federal question jurisdiction "cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Nor can federal question jurisdiction "rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim." Id. ("[A] federal counterclaim, even when compulsory, does not establish 'arising under' jurisdiction."). Since Fletcher sought removal based on his anticipated counterclaims and defenses, and Eastern Bank does not assert any federal law claims, it appears that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 25-72. It also appears that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Eastern Bank and at least some of the defendants are citizens of Massachusetts. Id. ¶¶ 1-5. Accordingly, the parties should explain whether, and if so, why, they nonetheless believe that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. (Currie, Haley)
Statement of fact
STATEMENT of facts re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Certificate of Service . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Tenney, Robert)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.