Walker v. Chavarria et al

Filing 13

ORDER that the Clerk of Court's entry of default against Defendant Chavarria (Doc. 12 ) is set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting 5 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. The Clerk shall remand this action back to Yuma County Justice Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 2 Defendant's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 12/2/15. (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

Steven C. Walker,

No. CV-15-00619-PHX-JZB
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Jose Chavarria, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 5.) Defendant

16

Jose Chavarria improperly removed the present action and the Court lacks subject-matter

17

jurisdiction over it. Accordingly, the Court will set aside the Clerk of Court’s entry of

18

default against Defendant Chavarria and remand this case back to Yuma County Justice

19

Court.1

20

I.

Background

21

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action for forcible detainer against

22

Defendants Chavarria and Jasmin Rodriguez in Yuma County Justice Court, pursuant to

23

A.R.S. §§ 12-1171, et seq. (Doc. 1-1.) On April 6, 2015, Defendant Chavarria removed

24

the action to this Court, without the consent of Defendant Rodriguez, asserting that this

25

Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 1.) On April 16,

26

2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this matter back to Yuma County Justice Court,

27
1

28

Because Defendant Chavarria has not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction,
this Court issues an Order on Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Remand. See General Order
11-03.

1

arguing that the removal was improper and this Court does not have subject-matter

2

jurisdiction over this case.

3

Plaintiff’s Motion.

(Doc. 5.)

Defendant Chavarria has not responded to

4

On May 15, 2015, District Judge Susan R. Bolton ordered Defendant to appear on

5

June 15, 2015, to show cause for his failure to comply with Rule 3.7(b) of the Local

6

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 7.) However, Defendant failed to appear for the show

7

cause hearing. (Doc. 8.) On June 16, 2015, Judge Bolton ordered Defendant Chavarria

8

to show cause in writing within seven days of the date of the Order why his answer

9

should not be stricken and default should not be entered against him for his failure to

10

comply with the Court’s Order. (Doc. 9.) On June 26, 2015, after Defendant failed to

11

respond to the Court’s Order, Judge Bolton directed the Clerk to strike his Answer and

12

enter default against him. (Doc. 10.) On the same day, the Clerk entered default against

13

Defendant Chavarria. (Doc. 12.) Since that time, he has not appeared or sought to set

14

aside the default entered against him.

15

II.

Discussion

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Although Defendant Chavarria asserts in the Notice of Removal that a claim in the

22

present action arises under federal law, a review of the Complaint reveals that it is a

23

straightforward forcible detainer action, otherwise known as an eviction action. (See

24

Docs. 1, 1-1.) Further, although Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s pleading “intentionally

25

fails to allege compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1968,” and Defendant may assert a

26

federal defense if this action proceeds, the assertion of a federal defense to a state-law

27

claim does not convert the state-law claim into one “arising under” federal law for

28

purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,

-2-

1

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

2

Therefore, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331

3

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

4

law).

5

Defendant Chavarria does not assert that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over

6

this action. And, even considering whether such jurisdiction exists here under 28 U.S.C. §

7

1332, the Court finds that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not satisfied. In

8

order to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must show both that he is

9

not a citizen of the same state as Plaintiff, and that the amount in controversy exceeds

10

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction). In

11

addition, even where there is diversity between the parties, a federal court may not

12

exercise jurisdiction if the moving defendant is a resident of the forum state. 28 U.S.C. §

13

1441(b). Here, the Complaint and Notice of Removal do not assert or establish diversity

14

of citizenship between the parties. (Docs. 1, 1-1.). Further, Plaintiff requests monetary

15

relief far below the $75,000 minimum amount in controversy. (Doc. 1-1.) Finally,

16

Defendant Chavarria’s address is listed as the property at issue in this action (located in

17

Yuma, Arizona); thus, he appears to be a forum defendant who may not remove a state-

18

court action. See id.

19

In the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must set aside the default

20

entered against Defendant Chavarria and remand this matter back to Yuma County

21

Justice Court. See Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985) (a district court’s

22

judgment is void where the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to render the

23

judgment); Yan v. General Pot, Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 997, 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“Thus,

24

with no subject-matter jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims, the entry of default

25

against Defendants is void . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring district courts to remand

26
27
28

-3-

1

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

2

subject-matter jurisdiction).2

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court’s entry of default against Defendant

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Chavarria (Doc. 12) is set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 5) is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court remand this action back
to Yuma County Justice Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.

12
13
14

Dated this 2nd day of December, 2015.

15
16
17

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee
Senior United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff also asserts that remand is appropriate because Ms. Rodriguez, the other
Defendant named in the Complaint, did not consent to the removal. (Doc. 5.) However,
it is not clear to the Court based on the documents submitted whether Ms. Rodriguez was
properly served with the Complaint.
-4-