Midland Funding LLC v. Huminski et al
Filing
18
ORDER that Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Dismiss, construed as a Motion to Remand, is granted. The Clerk shall remand this case to Highland Justice Court. All other pending motions (Doc. 2, 7, 8, 13, 15 and 16) are denied as moot. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/3/2012. (LFIG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Midland Funding LLC,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
v.
12
Scott Huminski, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-12-0868-PHX-DGC
ORDER
15
Plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action in Highland Justice Court to collect
16
an alleged debt of $5,710.17. Doc. 1-2. Plaintiff served the complaint on April 25, 2012,
17
and Defendants removed the case to this Court the next day alleging diversity and federal
18
question jurisdiction. Doc. 1. Rather than answer the complaint in this Court, Defendants
19
filed a motion to dismiss and numerous other motions.
20
Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks subject matter
21
jurisdiction. Doc. 9. The Court will construe the motion to dismiss as a motion to remand
22
the case to Justice Court. Defendants oppose the motion. Docs. 13, 15. For the reasons that
23
follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and remand this case to Justice Court.
24
Pursuant to the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, any civil action brought in state
25
court over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to the
26
federal district court for the district where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts
27
strictly construe the statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
28
566 (9th Cir. 1992). Indeed, there is a “strong presumption” against removal and “[f]ederal
1
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
2
instance.” Id. “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the
3
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. “If at any time
4
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
5
case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
6
The complaint in this case seeks to recover $5,701.17, substantially less than the
7
$75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction. Defendants’ reply to the motion does not
8
address this issue. See Docs. 13, 15. Defendants bear the burden “of establishing, by a
9
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez
10
v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996); see Matheson v. Progressive
11
Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Defendants have not met
12
this burden, the Court concludes that it does not have diversity jurisdiction.
13
Defendants seem to argue that a federal question exists in this case because they will
14
ask the Court to declare unconstitutional an Arizona criminal statute (A.R.S. § 13-1921) that
15
is not at issue in this case. Doc. 15. The Court cannot see how the criminal statute will be
16
at issue in this case, but even if its constitutionality was raised by Defendants in an answer
17
or counterclaim, federal question jurisdiction must be determined solely by the face of the
18
complaint. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends
19
solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.”
20
ARCO Envtl. Remediation v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113
21
(9th Cir. 2000). The complaint in this case pleads nothing more than a simple breach of
22
contract claim. The complaint does not raise a federal question.
23
24
Because the Court lacks diversity and federal question jurisdiction over this case, it
will remand the case to Highland Justice Court.
25
IT IS ORDERED:
26
1.
27
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9), construed as a motion to remand, is
granted. The Clerk shall remand this case to Highland Justice Court.
28
-2-
1
2.
All other pending motions (Docs. 2, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16) are denied as moot.
2
DATED this 3rd day of December, 2012.
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?