United States Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Todd et al

Filing 5

ORDER that the Clerk shall REMAND the present action back to the Maricopa County Justice Courts/San Marcos Justice Court. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/18/12. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter). (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States Secretary for the Department
of Housing and Urban Development,

No. CV-12-01978-PHX-GMS
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

Sandra Todd, et al.

13

Defendants.

14
15

The present action was improperly removed and the Court lacks subject-matter

16

jurisdiction over it; accordingly, the Court remands this case to Maricopa County Justice

17

Courts/San Marcos Justice Court.

18

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction

19

only over those matters specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution.

20

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As the proponent of the

21

Court's jurisdiction, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing it. Abrego

22

Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006).

23

Although the Notice of Removal states that a claim in the present action arises

24

under federal law, a review of the complaint reveals that it is a straightforward forcible

25

detainer, otherwise known as an eviction action. And while it appears that Defendant

26

Sandra Todd (“Defendant”) may assert a federal defense based on due process, the

27

assertion of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not convert the state-law claim

28

into one “arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See

1

Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing

2

the “well-pleaded complaint rule”). Therefore, the Court has no federal question

3

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring on federal courts subject-matter

4

jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law).

5

To the extent that the Notice of Removal purports to invoke the Court’s diversity

6

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are also

7

not satisfied. In order to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must show

8

both that she and plaintiff are not residents of the same state, and that the amount in

9

controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for

10

diversity jurisdiction). In addition, even when there is diversity between the parties, a

11

federal court may not exercise jurisdiction where the moving defendant is a resident of

12

the forum state. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, the Court need not decide whether there is

13

diversity between the parties or whether the amount in controversy requirement is met as

14

Defendant reports her address as the property at issue in this action (located in Chandler,

15

Arizona); thus, she is clearly a forum defendant who may not remove a state-court action.

16

See id.

17

In the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court is empowered to sua

18

sponte order summary remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (requiring district courts to

19

examine notices of removal and their exhibits and authorizing summary remand in

20

appropriate circumstances); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring district courts to remand cases

21

if it appears, at any time before final judgment is entered, that the court lacks subject-

22

matter jurisdiction).

23
24
25

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall REMAND the
present action back to the Maricopa County Justice Courts/San Marcos Justice Court.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2012.

26
27
28
-2-