CitiMortgage Incorporated v. Dulaney et al

Filing 6

ORDER that the Clerk of the Court REMAND this action back to Maricopa County Superior Court. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/14/2013. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

CitiMortgage, Incorporated, its assignees
and/or successors,

No. CV-12-02737-PHX-GMS
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

Charles Dulaney; 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

17

Superior Court.

18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23
24
25
26

Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006).
Although the Notice of Removal states that a claim in the present action arises
under federal law, a review of the complaint reveals that it is a straightforward forcible

27
28

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

1
2
3

Steven Hardman (“Defendant”) may assert a federal defense based on due process, the
assertion of a federal

4
5

defense to a state-law claim does not convert the state-law claim into one “arising under”

6

federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska

7

Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing the “well-pleaded

8
9

complaint rule”). Therefore, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1331 (conferring on federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over cases arising under

11

federal law).

12

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

13
14

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

15

not satisfied. To invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must show both

16

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

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21
22

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

23

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

24

Defendant reports his address as the property at issue in this action (located in Queen

25

Creek, Arizona); thus, he is clearly a forum defendant who may not remove a state-court

26
27
28

-2-

1
2

action. See id.

3

Further, to the extent that Defendant is attempting to appeal the state court’s final

4
5

judgment in the forcible detainer action, jurisdiction would not be proper in this case

6

because federal jurisdiction is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Albrecht v.

7

Demuniz, 315 F. App’x 654, 2009 WL 2914215, at *1 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming the

8
9

district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a pro se defendant’s appeal of a state court

10

judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

11

federal district courts from considering “cases brought by state-court losers complaining

12

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars

of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings

13
14

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon

15

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005).

16

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

17
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
22
23
24
25
26

if it appears, at any time before final judgment is entered, that the court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction).
///
///
///

27
28

-3-

1
2
3
4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court REMAND this
action back to Maricopa County Superior Court.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2013.

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-