Bryant et al v. Oklahoma's Federal Credit Union

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JLYN BRYANT et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-404-G
)
OKLAHOMA’S FEDERAL )
CREDIT UNION et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiffs Jlyn Bryant and Joecelyne Acuna initiated this action in Oklahoma County
District Court, bringing federal and state-law claims against Defendant Oklahoma’s
Federal Credit Union (“OFCU”). See Pet. (Doc. No. 1-1) at 4. Defendant OFCU removed
the case to this Court on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1441(a). See Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) at 2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Following removal, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 18) and then
a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 40), which is now the operative pleading. The
Second Amended Complaint adds a state-law civil conspiracy claim against Defendant
Brantley & Brantley, Adjusters (“Brantley”). See Second Am. Compl. at 2, 8, 12-13.
Importantly, however, the Second Amended Complaint omits any assertion of a federal
claim, instead suing Defendant OFCU only for breach of contract, violation of Oklahoma
statute, and civil conspiracy under state law. See id. at 2-13.
The Supreme Court has recently explained that such an amendment deprives a
federal district court of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims:
Case 5:24-cv-00404-G Document 48 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
When a plaintiff, after removal, cuts out all her federal-law claims, federal-
question jurisdiction dissolves. And with any federal anchor gone,
supplemental jurisdiction over the residual state claims disappears as well.
The operative pleading no longer supports federal jurisdiction, and the
federal court must remand the case to the state court where it started.
Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 39 (2025). Because 28 U.S.C. §
1367 “contemplates that when an amended complaint is filed, the jurisdictional basis for
the suit is reviewed anew,” “[i]f nothing in the amended complaint now falls within the
federal court’s original jurisdiction, then neither does anything fall within the court’s
supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. at 34 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
As an amendment to “cut[] out all” federal claims is precisely what has been effected
by Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint, and the record does not reflect that the
parties are completely diverse, the case must “return to state court.” Id. at 26, 39; see 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this matter to the District Court of
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and DIRECTS the Clerk of this Court to mail a certified
copy of this Order to the Clerk of the state court to which this matter is remanded.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00404-G Document 48 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2