This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P entered into a contract with BW Auto Outlet to finance the purchase of a vehicle. Within the contract, BW Auto Outlet assigned all of its rights under the contract to D. P alleges that in seeking to collect a debt under the contract, D called P's cellular phone 'hundreds of times' by means of an automatic dialing system. P asserts that he repeatedly told D to cease calling him. P alleges that D told him that they would not stop calling his cellular phone and that the calls would continue through the automatic dialing system. D filed a counterclaim alleging that P breached the original contract when he failed to make car payments, requiring D to repossess the vehicle. D contends that, following the sale of the vehicle and the application of the sale proceeds to the full amount owed, P owed a remainder of $23,782.17. P moved to dismiss D's counterclaim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction claiming that D has failed to assert any independent basis for jurisdiction over the counterclaim and that this Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim because it is a permissive counterclaim. D claims that, since the enactment of §1367, a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim, and that, in any event, its counterclaim is compulsory.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.