Stardom Real Estate LLC v. Johnston et al

Filing 9

ORDER that the Clerk of the Court REMAND this action back to Maricopa County Superior Court. ORDER denying the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 2 . ORDER finding the Expedited Motion to Remand 6 as moot. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/30/13. (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Remand)(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Stardom Real Estate LLC, on behalf of
Stardom Properties LLC,

No. CV-13-01474-PHX-GMS
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

Neil Johnston, et al.,

13

Defendant.

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 Neil

1
2

Johnston (“Defendant”) may assert a federal defense based on due process, the assertion
of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not convert the state-law claim into one

3
4

“arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See Moore-

5

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

6

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

7
8
9
10
11

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring on federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over cases
arising under federal law).
To the extent that the Notice of Removal purports to invoke the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are also

12
13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21

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

22

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

23

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

24

action. See id.

25
26

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

27

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

28

because federal jurisdiction is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Albrecht v.
-2-

1
2

Demuniz, 315 F. App’x 654, 2009 WL 2914215, at *1 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming the
district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a pro se defendant’s appeal of a state court

3
4

judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars

5

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

6

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

7
8
9
10
11

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005).
In the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court is empowered to sua
sponte order summary remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (requiring district courts to

12
13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

matter jurisdiction).
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court REMAND this action back to
Maricopa County Superior Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED finding the Expedited Motion to Remand (Doc. 6)
as moot.
Dated this 30th day of July, 2013.

25
26
27
28

-3-