Mara Finch v. Block Incorporated, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona addresses Plaintiff Mara Finch’s motion to remand, motions to dismiss, motion to stay, motion to strike, motion for an extension of time, and sur-reply. The court denies remand, finding federal-question jurisdiction based on the Electronic Fund Transfer Act claim and supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. It denies the motion to stay and motion to strike, grants McDonald’s request for an extension, strikes the improper sur-reply, and proceeds to evaluate dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including the two-dismissal rule and claim preclusion.

Holdings

1. The court had federal-question jurisdiction because the operative complaint asserted an EFTA claim, and it properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims because they shared a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.
2. Removal was not procedurally defective merely because defense counsel had not filed a separate state-court notice of appearance or because McDonald's had not filed a separate written consent document.
3. The court declined to apply Arizona's two-dismissal rule or claim preclusion to bar the action because the prior filings were prompt, substantially identical filings by a pro se litigant that functioned as amendments rather than a vexatious litigation scheme, and applying preclusion would create manifest injustice.
4. Finch failed to state an EFTA claim because she did not allege that Block was a financial institution subject to EFTA liability, but the court granted leave to amend.
5. Finch failed to state breach-of-contract claims against either defendant because she did not adequately identify a contract, its terms, the breach, or resulting damages; leave to amend was granted.
6. Finch failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), and the claim was dismissed against both defendants with leave to amend.
7. The ACFA claim against Block survived dismissal, while the ACFA claim against McDonald's was dismissed with leave to amend.
8. Finch failed to plead actionable defamation because she did not identify the allegedly defamatory statements, their publication to third parties, or sufficient facts showing that McDonald's silence implied objectively verifiable defamatory facts; the claim was dismissed against both defendants with leave to amend.
9. Finch failed to plausibly allege that either defendant owed her a legal duty or breached one, and the negligence claims were dismissed with leave to amend.
10. The court declined to dismiss Finch's unjust-enrichment claim against McDonald's on the ground that a viable contract remedy would preclude unjust enrichment, because the complaint did not adequately allege a contract with McDonald's.
11. Finch could not maintain a private civil claim under A.R.S. § 13-2311, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice because the criminal statute provides no private cause of action and does not apply to these defendants.
12. McDonald's demonstrated excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(1)(B), and the court granted its motion for an extension of time to file a reply submitted three days late.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal court possessed removal jurisdiction based on Finch's EFTA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.
2. Whether the removal was procedurally defective because counsel had not filed a state-court notice of appearance, McDonald's had not separately consented in writing, or Finch was allegedly confused or prejudiced by removal.
3. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction because the state-law claims allegedly predominated over the federal claim.
4. Whether the two-dismissal rule and claim preclusion barred the action based on Finch's two prior voluntary dismissals in state court.
5. Whether Finch adequately pleaded claims for violation of the EFTA, breach of contract, fraud, Arizona Consumer Fraud Act violations, defamation, negligence or gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of A.R.S. § 13-2311.
6. Whether McDonald's established excusable neglect warranting an extension of time to file its late reply.

Disposition

other