# Brown

> District Court, W.D. Washington · August 25, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11427022

## Case

- **Full name:** Eldorado Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington
- **Decided:** August 25, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11427022

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4

5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
9
10
ELDORADO BROWN, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-01528-LK
11
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
12 v. REMAND, DENYING MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT, AND
13 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING
MOTIONS
14 Defendant.
15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Eldorado Brown’s “motion to allow
17 Plaintiff access to accounts,” Dkt. No. 13, motion requesting “the court to order defendants to pay
18 a debt bill sent to collections,” Dkt. No. 15, motion asking for access to his accounts and for the
19 Court to order “defendants” to pay a “debt bill,” Dkt. No. 17, and Motion and Notice to Add
20 Supplemental Complaint, Dkt. No. 33; and on Defendant Wells Fargo’s Motion to Remand, Dkt.
21 No. 22, and Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Motion to Remand, Dkt. No. 27. For the reasons
22 set forth below, the Court grants the motion to remand and denies all other motions.
23
24
1 I. BACKGROUND
2 Pro se Plaintiff Eldorado Brown, who is incarcerated in state prison, filed a complaint
3 against Wells Fargo in King County Superior Court on April 9, 2026, alleging violations of the
4 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (“ADA”), and negligence. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1–

5 2. Wells Fargo timely removed the case to this Court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based
6 on the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim. Dkt. No. 1 at 2–3.
7 Wells Fargo then filed a motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 7, and Brown filed a timely amended
8 complaint on June 1, 2026, Dkt. No. 12. In the amended complaint, Brown no longer alleges
9 violations of the ADA or any other federal laws, and he seeks $3,000, reissuance of his debit card,
10 and other unspecified monetary damages for breach of contract, negligence, outrage, and “strict
11 liability.” See generally id.; id. at 16. Brown also filed a “motion to allow Plaintiff access to
12 accounts,” Dkt. No. 13, a motion requesting “the court to order defendants to pay a debt bill sent
13 to collections,” Dkt. No. 15, and a third motion asking for access to his accounts and for the Court
14 to order “defendants” to pay a “debt bill,” Dkt. No. 17.

15 Wells Fargo then filed a motion to remand, arguing that the Court lacked subject matter
16 jurisdiction over the case because the amended complaint no longer contained a federal cause of
17 action and Wells Fargo did not believe the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 required
18 for diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 22 at 2. It also filed a motion to stay proceedings pending
19 resolution of its motion to stay. Dkt. No. 27.
20 On July 8, 2026, Brown filed the present motion seeking to file a supplemental complaint
21 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). Dkt. No. 33. The proposed supplemental complaint
22 alleges $92,000 as the “fico score damage amount.” Id. at 8.
23

24
1 II. DISCUSSION
2 Removal of a civil action to federal district court is proper when the federal court would
3 have original jurisdiction over the action filed in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Because Brown’s
4 original complaint contained alleged violations of federal law, removal to this Court was

5 appropriate. See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2–3. However, “[w]hen a plaintiff amends [his] complaint
6 following [his] suit’s removal, a federal court’s jurisdiction depends on what the new complaint
7 says.” Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 30 (2025). The operative complaint
8 in this case is Brown’s first amended complaint filed on June 1, 2026. Dkt. No. 12. It lacks a
9 federal cause of action, clearly fails to establish any basis for an amount in controversy exceeding
10 $75,000, and does not plead citizenship of the parties. See generally id. Therefore, the Court lacks
11 jurisdiction over the operative complaint.
12 Brown’s proposed supplemental complaint does not include a federal cause of action but
13 appears to assert diversity jurisdiction based on $92,000 in damages. Dkt. No. 33-1 at 8. Federal
14 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) permits supplemental pleadings “setting out any transaction,

15 occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” “[T]he legal
16 standard for granting or denying a motion to supplement under Rule 15(d) is the same as the
17 standard for a Rule 15(a) motion to amend.” Ereikat v. Michael & Assocs., PC, No. 14-CV-05339-
18 JSC, 2015 WL 4463653, at *6 n.5 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2015). The Court may deny leave after
19 considering “the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing
20 party, and/or futility.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)
21 (quoting Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Cribier v.
22 Compass, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01833-RBM-VET, 2026 WL 2280654, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2026)
23 (“[D]istrict courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to allow a supplemental pleading.”

24 (citing Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988))). Although the “general rule” is that
1 leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires,” when “the legal basis for a cause
2 of action is tenuous, futility supports the refusal to grant leave to amend.” Lockheed Martin Corp.
3 v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
4 As Wells Fargo notes in its response to Brown’s motion to supplement,

5 [C]ontinued amendment is causing Wells Fargo undue prejudice, as Plaintiff
continues to move the goal posts as to the nature and basis of his claims, resulting
6 in continued multiplication of this litigation. Indeed, Plaintiff initiated this action
alleging claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and
7 common law negligence. [ECF No. 1-2.] To avoid dismissal following Wells
Fargo’s filing its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [ECF No. 7],
8 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, whereby he removed his ADA claim, and
instead, asserted claims for tortious breach of duty, strict liability, breach of
9 contract/ breach of the covenant/ breach of warranty, negligence, and outrage. [ECF
No. 12.] This resulted in Wells Fargo’s filing a Motion to Remand [ECF No. 22],
10 notifying the Court that it appeared the Court no longer had jurisdiction over this
action because Plaintiff was no longer asserting claims for violations of the ADA
11 or any other federal law, nor was it evident from the face of the Amended Complaint
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,00, sufficient to confer diversity
12 jurisdiction. [ECF No. 22.]
13 In response, in an apparent effort to avoid remand, Plaintiff now files the Motion
to [Supplement], alleging an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000[.]
14
Dkt. No. 37 at 2–3.1 Although “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently
15
made in good faith,” the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction still bears the burden of “alleg[ing]
16
with sufficient particularity the facts creating jurisdiction” and of “support[ing] the allegation” if
17
challenged. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 287 n.10, 288 (1938).
18
Good faith is not present “when independent facts show that the damages amount claimed is
19
manifestly incredible, or obviously has been inflated by the plaintiff merely to secure federal
20
jurisdiction.” 14B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3712 (5th ed.
21
April 2026 Update); see also Thomas v. Generac Power Sys. Inc., No. 21-12997, 2022 WL
22
4091735, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2022) (a court may conclude to a legal certainty that the
23

24 1 While Wells Fargo does not oppose Brown’s motion to supplement his complaint, Dkt. No. 37, it has not withdrawn
its motion to remand, Dkt. No. 22.
1 jurisdictional amount has not been met where “the amount of claimed damages has been projected
2 beyond the amount of a reasonable expectation of recovery”). Accordingly, “[c]ourts routinely
3 reject conclusory, unsupported statements regarding alleged amounts in controversy.” Gigi's, Inc.
4 v. Gina Butler, No. CV2003134ABPJWX, 2020 WL 5498069, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2020)

5 (citation modified) (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Berrocal v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 25-
6 50259, 2025 WL 3488842, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025) (it was “apparent to a legal certainty” that
7 plaintiff’s claim was for less than the jurisdictional amount where plaintiff implausibly alleged
8 that a $2,500 refrigerator breaking generated $50,000 in damages); Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech
9 LLC, 665 F.3d 38, 42–43 (1st Cir. 2012) (plaintiff’s allegation that the amount in controversy was
10 “at least $1,000,000” did not qualify as sufficient particularity where he provided no substantiation
11 for the sum other than “bald statements and round numbers”).
12 Underscoring the apparent lack of good faith motivating Brown’s motion to supplement
13 his complaint is his apparent aim to “bring[] the value of claim to over 75,00000 $[.]” Dkt. No. 33-
14 1 at 2. Brown asserts in his proposed supplemental complaint that Wells Fargo’s “fail[ure] to notify

15 Plaintiff of debit card deactivation and give Plaintiff notice to notify creditors with reoccurring
16 payments Plaintiff receives notice from debit collectors McCarthy Bursels Wolft . . . in the amount
17 of 66.43 $ fair isaac corporation score Leading to additional Damages since the date the original
18 complaint was filed fico score damage 92,00000 $[.]” Dkt. No. 33-1 at 5–6. “While a federal court
19 must of course give due credit to the good faith claims of the plaintiff, a court would be remiss in
20 its obligations if it accepted every claim of damages at face value, no matter how trivial the
21 underlying injury.” Diefenthal v. C. A. B., 681 F.2d 1039, 1052 (5th Cir. 1982). Brown makes no
22 attempt to explain, nor can the Court imagine, how a $66.43 bill being sent to collections caused
23 $92,000 of “fico score damage” in the three- to four-month span between the filing of his original

24
1 complaint and his motion to supplement that complaint. “[T]he ‘sufficient particularity’ standard
2 requires something more than a plaintiff’s conclusory statements.” Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 45.
3 Because Brown’s proposed supplemental complaint does not establish subject matter
4 jurisdiction, it would be futile to allow him to supplement his pleading. Accordingly, his motion

5 to supplement is denied. Furthermore, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the
6 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
7 Because neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction exists in this case, the Court must
8 remand it to state court.
9 III. CONCLUSION
10 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Brown’s motion to supplement his
11 complaint, Dkt. No. 33, GRANTS Wells Fargo’s motion to remand, Dkt. No. 22, and DENIES as
12 moot all other motions, Dkt. Nos. 13, 15, 17, 27. The Court accordingly ORDERS that:
13 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), all further proceedings in this case are REMANDED
14 to the Superior Court for King County in the State of Washington;

15 2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court
16 for the Superior Court for King County, Washington;
17 3. The Clerk of the Court shall also transmit the record herein to the Clerk of the Court for
18 the Superior Court for King County, Washington; and
19 4. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case.
20 Dated this 25th day of August, 2026.
21 A
22 Lauren King
United States District Judge
23
24

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11427022. Public record. Not legal advice.