Mayhew et al v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
7
ORDER that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand 4 is granted; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 3 is denied as moot; and the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to the Maricopa County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/11/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(ALS)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Alvin Mayhew and Mark Mayhew,
9
10
Plaintiffs,
vs.
11
12
State of Arizona, et al,
Defendants.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-14-01515-PHX-SPL
ORDER
15
On May 22, 2014, Plaintiffs Alvin Mayhew and Mark Mayhew filed a complaint
16
in the Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2014-93702, against Defendants
17
State of Arizona, Patricia Wenzel and Spouse, and Casey Melsek and Spouse. (Doc. 1-2.)
18
On July 7, 2014, Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court,
19
District of Arizona, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331, commencing the instant
20
action. (Doc. 1.)
21
On July 9, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) and Plaintiffs filed
22
a Motion to Remand (Doc. 4). Defendants have filed a Response to the Motion to
23
Remand (Doc. 5), to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 6). For the reasons that follow,
24
this case will be remanded to state court, and Defendants’ motion will be denied as moot.
25
I.
Legal Standard
26
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction
27
only over those matters specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
28
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The federal court’s
1
original jurisdiction can be established where the case involves diversity of citizenship,
2
28 U.S.C. § 1332, or the case involves a federal question, in that it involves a question
3
“arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
4
A state court action may be removed by a defendant or defendants if it could have
5
originally been brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “If the district court at
6
any time determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the
7
improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel.
8
Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447).
9
There is a strong presumption against removal, and the removing defendant bears
10
the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443
11
F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992);
12
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “[N]otice of
13
removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners of
14
the applicable pleadings.” Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th
15
Cir. 2005). “In determining the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction, [the Court
16
applies] the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists
17
only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded
18
complaint.” California ex rel. Lockyer, 375 F.3d at 838 (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v.
19
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction
20
Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11, n. 9 (1983) (“The well-
21
pleaded complaint rule applies to the original jurisdiction of the district courts as well as
22
to their removal jurisdiction.”).
23
II.
Analysis
24
Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint is not one which could have originally been brought in
25
federal court as required for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Despite Defendants’
26
construction that Plaintiffs’ claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Plaintiffs explicitly
27
aver, the complaint alleges only state-law claims and they do not allege a federal question
28
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(b). Plaintiffs submit:
2
Count One of the Complaint is the state tort of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Count two is the state tort
claim for malicious prosecution. There is no count three.
Count Four is the state tort for negligent hiring, retention or
supervision. Count Five is the state tort for intentional
interference with parental custody of a child. Count Six is
negligence and duplicate Count Six is the state tort of
defamation and libel. Count Seven is the state tort of False
Light Invasion of Privacy. There is not one count asserting a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal jurisdiction
claim.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(Doc. 4 at 2.) Consequently, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish this
8
Court has jurisdiction over this action.
9
In response, Defendants complain that because the complaint implicitly raises
10
federal claims, “[i]f Plaintiffs did not intend to allege that the States employees violated
11
their rights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or that they
12
are withdrawing such claims,” this Court should make such a finding on the record. (Doc.
13
5 at 2.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have offered an unambiguous recitation of their
14
state-law claims, and have not requested an award of costs or attorneys’ fees incurred.
15
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th
16
Cir. 2006) (attorneys’ fees may be awarded if the “removing party lacked an objectively
17
reasonable basis for seeking removal”). Thus, nothing suggests that additional findings
18
are warranted.
19
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§
20
1331, 1441. The Court will therefore order that this case be remanded to the Maricopa
21
County Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly,
22
IT IS ORDERED:
23
1. That Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) is granted;
24
2. That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) is denied as moot; and
25
…
26
…
27
…
28
…
3
1
2
3
3. That the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to the Maricopa County
Superior Court.
Dated this 11th day of July, 2014.
4
5
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
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?