Smaranda Draghia v. United Collection Bureau Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-00083
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SMARANDA DRAGHIA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:26-CV-00083-JKP

UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER OF REMAND Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 5. Defendant filed no re- sponse. Upon consideration, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Smaranda Draghia (“Draghia”) filed this lawsuit in the 225th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, Cause No. 2025-CI-26289, and Defendant United Collection Bureau Inc. removed under federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Subsequently, Draghia filed an Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 4), and the instant Mo- tion to Remand, (ECF No. 5). In the Motion to Remand, Plaintiff states her “First Amended Complaint asserts only state law causes of action and does not plead any claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States . . . [i]n addition, diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332 does not exist because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, ex- clusive of interest and costs.” Id. at 2. Defendant filed no response. 1

1 Defendants’ decision not to oppose remand provides sufficient grounds to remand on its own. Brown v. Heintz, No. 16-13697, 2017 WL 604034, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2017) (collecting cases); see also Williams v. Parker, 843 F.3d 617, 621 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998))); Jackson v. City of New Orleans, No. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025), the Supreme Court, af- firming the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, held that re- mand is required where a plaintiff amends a complaint to delete the federal-law claims that al- lowed for removal to federal court. As the Court summed up its decision:

The earliest version of that suit contained federal-law claims and therefore was properly removed to federal court. The additional state-law claims were suffi- ciently related to the federal ones to come within that court's supplemental juris- diction. But when Wullschleger amended her complaint, the jurisdictional analy- sis also changed. Her deletion of all federal claims deprived the District Court of federal-question jurisdiction. And once that was gone, the court's supplemental ju- risdiction over the state claims dissolved too. Wullschleger had reconfigured her suit to make it only about state law. And so the suit became one for a state court.

Carroll v. Vivid Seats, LLC, No. 3:25-CV-00127, 2025 WL 746701, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2025), R. & R. adopted, No. 3:25-CV-00127, 2025 WL 746520 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2025) (quot- ing Royal Canin, 604 U.S. at 43-44); see, e.g., Joel v. Howard Univ., No. 1:24-CV-01655, 2025 WL 358769, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2025) (“As the Supreme Court recently explained, after amendment, ‘[t]he amended complaint becomes the operative one; and in taking the place of what has come before, it can either create or destroy [federal] jurisdiction.’). Here, Draghia has abandoned her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., cause of action, which was the basis for Defendant’s removal to this court. “Her deletion of all federal claims deprived [this court] of federal-question jurisdiction. And once that was gone, the court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims dissolved too. [Draghia] had reconfigured her suit to make it only about state law.” Royal Canin, 604 U.S. at 44. Accordingly, the Court must remand this case to state court and, therefore, Draghia’s Mo- tion to Remand, (ECF No. 5), will be granted. E.g., Joslin v. Garcia, No. 5:25-CV-00655-JKP,

95-1340, 1995 WL 599046, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 10, 1995) (holding that plaintiff's remand motion “could be granted as unopposed”). 2025 WL 2825629 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2025); Elevated Foundations Corp., Pl., v. Paces Func- ing, LLC et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: K.G. Hughes & Associates, LLC, No. 1:24- CV-03878, 2025 WL 2743867 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2025), R. & R. adopted sub nom. Elevated Foundations Corp. v. Paces Funding, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-03878, 2025 WL 2743864 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2025); Miles v. LSG Sky Chefs Inc., No. 3:25-CV-01355, 2025 WL 2100659 (N.D. Tex. July 2, 2025), R. & R. adopted, No. 3:25-CV-01355, 2025 WL 2099211 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2025); Carroll v. Vivid Seats, LLC, No. 3:25-CV-00127, 2025 WL 746701, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2025), R. & R. adopted, No. 3:25-CV-00127, 2025 WL 746520 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2025); Joel v. Howard U., No. 1:24-CV-01655, 2025 WL 358769 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2025). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Draghia’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 5), is GRANTED. It is ORDERED this case be REMANDED to state court. The referral to the Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN. All other motions pending in this action are DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to affect the remand according to the usual procedure and close this case. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 19th day of February, 2026. □ / Oaaen UULLOW\ D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE