Colucci et al v. SunTrust Mortgage Incorporated

Filing 48

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/10/11. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Remand Letter)(LAD)

Download PDF
    1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Steven J. Colucci and Alison M. Fry, No. CV10-2066-PHX-DGC Plaintiffs, 10 ORDER 11 vs. 12 Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., a California corporation; et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 On August 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an action in the Arizona Superior Court for 17 Maricopa County against SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (“SunTrust”) alleging violations of 18 federal and Arizona laws. Doc. 1-1. Although SunTrust was not served with process 19 (Doc. 1 at 2:7), it removed the action to this Court on September 27, 2010 on the basis of 20 federal-question and diversity jurisdiction (id. at 2:20, 3:5). SunTrust subsequently filed 21 an answer (Doc. 7), the Court held a case management conference (Doc. 11), and 22 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 1, 2011 (Doc. 13). 23 On July 20, 2011, the Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice 24 as to Defendants SunTrust and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 25 (“MERS”) on joint stipulation by the parties. Doc. 45. The joint stipulation states that 26 Plaintiffs dismiss without prejudice “all claims against Defendants SunTrust Mortgage, 27 Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.” Doc. 44 at 1:24-26. Some of the 28 claims pled in the amended complaint against SunTrust or MERS also name as parties     1 one or more of the following: Branch Banking & Trust (“BBT”), TSA Title Agency 2 (“TSA”), and MAX Default Services Corp. (“MAX”). Doc. 13. Plaintiffs have now 3 confirmed that their dismissal of MERS and SunTrust leaves intact the claims against 4 BBT, TSA, and MAX. Doc. 47. 5 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) has been filed by BBT (Doc. 28), and the 6 motion is joined by TSA and MAX (Docs. 32, 38). BBT argues in part that Plaintiffs’ 7 claims are barred by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-811(C). Doc. 28 at 4. Plaintiffs oppose 8 (Doc. 33), and BBT filed a reply (Doc. 39). The parties do not request oral argument. 9 The amended complaint alleges only claims under Arizona law (Doc. 13), thereby 10 eliminating federal-question jurisdiction. The amended complaint also pleads claims 11 against TSA, which is alleged to be an Arizona corporation (id. at ¶ 5) – an allegation 12 TSA admits in its answer (Doc. 30 at 2:5). The lack of complete diversity eliminates this 13 Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 14 With federal-question and diversity jurisdiction no longer available, the Court 15 concludes this case should be remanded to state court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. 16 Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims 17 are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to 18 exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” (citing United Mine Workers 19 of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966))). Resolution of the remaining state-law 20 claims will require application of Arizona law. Because Arizona state courts have a 21 greater interest and expertise in resolving state-law issues, remanding this case will 22 further principles of comity. Additionally, remand will benefit the federal system by 23 allowing this Court to devote its scarce resources to resolving federal issues. 24 25 Because the Court is remanding this case to state court, it will leave the pending motion to dismiss to be decided by the state court. 26 27 28 ‐ 2 ‐      1 IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court. 2 Dated this 10th day of August, 2011. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‐ 3 ‐ 

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?