Tapp et al v. Alli et al
Filing
5
ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court to remand this case to the Moon Valley Justice Court and terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/17/11. (Attachments: # 1 letter)(DMT)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Terry Tapp; Ben Koerner; Realty
Executives, Inc.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
13
14
Adebisi Alli,
Defendant,
15
No. CV-11-2069-PHX-GMS
ORDER
16
17
Defendant Adebisi Alli has filed a Notice of Removal, seeking to remove Moon
18
Valley Justice Court Case No. CC2011144405 to the Federal District Court of Arizona. (Doc.
19
1). Since removal is improper because the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
20
the case, the Court remands this action.
21
BACKGROUND
22
On July 21, 2011, Plaintiffs Terry Tapp, Ben Koerner, and Realty Executives, Inc.
23
filed a complaint in the Moon Valley Justice Court against Defendant, seeking $3,454 for
24
fraud and harassment. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1(B)). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was
25
denied on October 6, 2011. (Doc. 1, Exs. 1, 9). Defendant then filed a Notice of Removal
26
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (2006), stating that she is a citizen of the state of Michigan and
27
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7, 11).
28
1
2
DISCUSSION
1.
Legal Standard
3
Any time that the Court determines, on motion or on its own, that it lacks subject-
4
matter jurisdiction to hear a case, it must dismiss the action. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). “The
5
party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.” Indus.
6
Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen.
7
Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). A civil action may only be removed
8
to federal court if federal jurisdiction would have been proper had the complaint originally
9
been filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
10
Federal jurisdiction is proper in all cases that present a federal question on the face
11
of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006). In addition, the Court has subject-matter
12
jurisdiction to rule on cases in which defendants and plaintiffs are citizens of different states
13
and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006). If the claim
14
on the face of the complaint is for greater than $75,000, the amount in controversy
15
requirement is met if the claim is made in good faith. If, however, “from the face of the
16
pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover” an amount
17
adequate to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, dismissal is proper. St. Paul
18
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938).
19
2.
Analysis
20
As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant has the burden of proving all
21
jurisdictional facts. Indus. Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1092. Defendant provides a copy of her
22
Michigan Driver’s license, along with a 28-page complaint she filed against Plaintiffs in
23
Wayne County, Michigan on August 9, 2011 in which she states that she is a citizen of
24
Michigan. (Doc. 1, Exs. 5(B), 3). In that suit, Defendant states that while living in Michigan,
25
she paid a deposit on a rental apartment in Phoenix of $2,215. She claims that the apartment
26
was uninhabitable because of mold and other issues, and that Plaintiffs failed to return her
27
deposit upon demand. She seeks $450,000 on each of five counts, including Breach of
28
Contract, Tortious Interference with Advantageous Expectancy, Fraud and Fraudulent
-2-
1
Inducement, Conversion, Retaliation, and violation of Michigan State Civil Rights Laws.
2
Now claiming that her Michigan complaint and the present complaint arise from the same
3
transaction, she states that she satisfied the amount in controversy requirement because she
4
“seeks recovery of at lease [sic] two million dollars.” (Doc. 1 ¶10). Additionally, she has
5
attached a counterclaim, alleging many of the same claims she lodged in the Michigan
6
complaint, along with her answer. (Doc. 4).
7
It appears that Defendant is in fact a citizen of the State of Michigan. However,
8
Plaintiffs claim of only $3,454 is inadequate to satisfy the amount in controversy
9
requirement. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1(B)). Defendant’s Michigan suit, which she acknowledges
10
contains “different cause of action and different claims,”(Doc. 1 ¶ 10), cannot be removed
11
to an Arizona district court, since state court actions can only be removed “to the district
12
court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action
13
is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The amount alleged in her counterclaim may not be
14
considered in determining whether she has satisfied the amount in controversy requirement.
15
Mesa Indus., Inc. v. Eaglebrook Prods., Inc., 980 F. Supp. 323, 326–27 (D. Ariz. 1997). In
16
any event, the only tangible damages Defendant identifies in her Michigan complaint and her
17
counterclaim are the loss of her $2,215 deposit and $6,700 “for additional expenses and
18
interest.” It appears to a legal certainty that she cannot recover the amount she claims; a
19
claim of over two million dollars as compensation for $8,915 in actual loss is not “apparently
20
made in good faith.” St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. 288. Defendant has not met her burden of
21
proving jurisdictional facts to this Court. Indus. Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1090. Since the Court
22
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim, it will be remanded to the Moon Valley
23
Justice Court.
24
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
The federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because, while the
parties are diverse, the amount in controversy is under $75,000.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to remand this
case to the Moon Valley Justice Court and terminate this action.
-3-
1
DATED this 17th day of November, 2011.
2
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
-4-
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?