Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association Incorporated v. Magic Asset Management Trust, et al

Filing 4

* ORDER that the Clerk shall remand this action to Maricopa County Superior Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/18/15. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(KGM) * Modified text on 6/22/2015 (KGM).

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Cottonflower Goodyear Community Association, Inc., No. CV15-01100-PHX-DGC ORDER 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Malik Bey, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 Defendant Malik Bey, also apparently known as Walter Edward King, removed 15 16 this case from Maricopa County Superior Court. Doc. 1. The Court will remand the case 17 for lack of diversity jurisdiction. 18 I. Background. Defendant, who claims to be a “non resident alien and foreign sovereign on the 19 20 land of this Republic by birthright and heritage” (Doc. 1 at 4), asserts that he is the owner 21 of the various entities named as Defendants in this case. He asserts that this case was 22 filed in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2013, a default judgment was wrongly 23 entered in 2014, and the Maricopa County Sheriff is about to sell his property. Id. at 2-4. 24 He filed a notice of removal and seeks immediate injunctive relief. 25 II. Legal Standard. 26 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), district courts have removal jurisdiction over any 27 claim that originally could have been brought in federal court. Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, 28 Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 686-87 (9th Cir. 2007). The removal statute is strictly construed 1 against removal jurisdiction. Id. (citing Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 2 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and 3 federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 4 first instance. Id. 5 III. 6 Discussion. Defendant removed this case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 7 1 at 4. In order to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must show that 8 Defendants and Plaintiff are not residents of the same state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 9 Defendant alleges that he is a foreign sovereign, but notes in the address block of 10 his filing that he resides “In care of [2267 south 173rd Drive]” in “Maricopa county 11 Arizona Republic near [Goodyear] zip exempt.” Doc. 1 at 1. This address – 2267 south 12 173rd Drive, Goodyear, Arizona – is the same street address as the property at issue in 13 the underlying lawsuit. Doc. 1-1 at 2. 14 Defendant thus resides in Arizona, and Plaintiff is an Arizona non-profit 15 corporation. Doc. 1-1 at 1. Because Defendant and Plaintiff are both Arizona residents, 16 the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction, removal was improper, and this case will be 17 remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court. 18 19 20 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall remand this action to Maricopa County Superior Court. Dated this 18th day of June, 2015. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?