Azeltine v. Bank of America

Filing 42

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 39 Report and Recommendations. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this matter.. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 2/10/2012.(JKM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John H. Azeltine, Jr., Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Bank of America, 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-218-TUC-JGZ (HCE) ORDER 15 16 On December 16, 2011, the Honorable Hector C. Estrada, United States Magistrate 17 Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”), (Doc. 39), in this action 18 pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District 19 of Arizona. The Recommendation advised the Court to GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN 20 PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 22 23 On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 40.) Defendant responded to the Objections on January 13, 2012. (Doc. 41.) 24 Plaintiff’s Objection includes two cursory claims.1 First, Plaintiff takes issue with the 25 Magistrate’s finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that “the 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff's Objection to the Recommendation fails to comply with Rule 72(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., which requires the Objection to include "specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." 1 Federal Court does have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over cases involving theft from U.S. 2 Bank Accounts, even when the Bank is involved.” 3 Recommendation, Plaintiff’s claim for “theft and conspiracy to commit fraud and 4 conversion” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. fails because the statute applies only to 5 “creditors,” ie. “entities that collect debts for third parties,” and the facts alleged in the 6 Complaint do not support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant was attempting to collect a debt 7 in this case. (Doc. 39, pgs. 5-8.) (Doc. 40.) As stated in the 8 Second, Plaintiff challenges the Magistrate’s conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to 9 plead diversity jurisdiction because he has not alleged an amount in controversy in excess 10 of $75,000. Plaintiff claims that the Constitution does not require an amount in controversy; 11 however, Congress is authorized to set thresholds for the federal court’s subject matter 12 jurisdiction. See, e.g., Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514-15 (2006). Plaintiff also 13 alleges that “neither the Defendant nor the Court can, in good faith, declare that the 14 Plaintiff’s breach NPPI could not be worth the $75,000 under U.S.C. 28 1332.” For the 15 reasons stated in the Recommendation, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that, upon the 16 face of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, it is obvious that Plaintiff’s suit cannot involve the 17 necessary amount. (Doc. 39, pgs. 12-15.) 18 After a thorough and de novo review of the record and appropriate case law, the Court 19 disagrees with Plaintiff's objections to the Recommendation. The Court considers the 20 Recommendation (Doc. 39) to be thorough and well-reasoned and will ADOPT the 21 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Estrada to dismiss this action and to deny an award 22 of attorneys’ fees. 23 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Magistrate Judge Estrada's Report and 24 Recommendation (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is -2- 1 GRANTED to the extent Defendant seeks dismissal of this action. 2 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close 3 the file in this matter. 4 DATED this 10th day of February, 2012. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- This matter is

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?