In Bates v. American Credit Acceptance, LLC, 2016 WL 5477429, at *3 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Tarnow exercised supplemental jurisdiction over a collection cross-complaint filed in response to a TCPA claim.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s counterclaim are sufficiently part of the same case or controversy to warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. The claims at issue clearly arise from the same nucleus of operative fact and “revolve around a central fact pattern.” Blakely, 276 F.3d at 261 (citing White v. County of Newberry, S.C., 985 F.2d 168, 172 (4th Cir. 1993)). The common denominator here is the November 2011 Simple Interest Retail Installment Contract executed by Mr. Bates and Cars & Credit Assistance.1Plaintiffs argue that Defendant violated their rights under the TCPA by repeatedly calling their cellular phones, even after consent to call was revoked. Defendant asserts (and, indeed, Plaintiffs acknowledge) that these calls were made in an effort to collect the balance owed after Mr. Bates defaulted under the terms of the November 2011 contract for failure to make payment when due. In sum, neither Plaintiffs’ TCPA-based claims, nor Defendant’s breach of law contract claim, would exist but for the November 2011 contract and the parties’ actions thereunder. It is important to note, too, that much of the available evidence likely to be examined by both parties is substantially the same. Both parties will presumably provide records, documentation, and/or testimony regarding the nature of the phone calls and the frequency with which they were made; the consent and revocation of consent to call by the Bates; and the purchase of the vehicle and the amount of the loan. Moreover, it stands to reason that both parties will rely on witness testimony from Mr. and Mrs. Bates and the records custodian at ACA.