Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01119/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01119-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yankton Sioux Tribe,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Mary T. Wynne, Wynne Law Firm,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1119-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant Mary T. Wynne’s (“Defendant”) Motion to

Dismiss for improper venue (Dkt. 6), and Plaintiff’s Yankton Sioux Tribe’s (“Plaintiff”)

Response (Dkt. 9); Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Dkt. 7); Defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Dkt. 14, 16), Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. 19), and Defendant’s

Reply (Dkt. 22); and Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 21), Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt.23), and

Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. 24). For reasons discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion

to Remand and dismisses the remaining motions as moot.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an Indian tribe based in South Dakota. (Compl. at ¶ 6.) Defendant is an

attorney who resides in Arizona but is not licensed to practice law in Arizona. (Compl. at ¶ 7.)

Defendant performed legal work for Plaintiff in various cases from 1999 to 2007. (Compl. at

¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff alleges that after it terminated Defendant’s employment, Defendant refused

to release certain files relating to ongoing litigation, and asserted a “lien” on the files as a result

of a fee dispute. (Compl. at ¶¶ 14, 39.)

Case 2:07-cv-01119-SMM Document 25 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

In May 2007, Plaintiff filed claims for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty in

Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests

injunctive relief directing Defendant to turn over the legal files, compensatory and punitive

damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. On June 6, 2007, Defendant removed the action to this

Court, “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq.” (Dkt. 2.) On June 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Remand to Superior Court. (Dkt. 7.) Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion

to Remand.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants may remove any civil action brought in a state court of which the district

courts have original jurisdiction to the district court for the district embracing the place where

the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A motion to remand the case for any defect other

than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice

of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). An order remanding a case to the State court is not

reviewable on appeal or otherwise, unless the case was removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 

DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff raises several points in support of its motion to remand. Plaintiff first asserts

that Defendant is a citizen of Arizona, the state where the action was brought, and that removal

was therefore improper. Second, Plaintiff alleges that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over the case because Plaintiff only seeks equitable relief and thus the amount in controversy

minimum requirement is not met. Third, Plaintiff asserts that it is not subject to diversity

jurisdiction because, as an unincorporated Indian tribe, it is not a citizen of any state.

District courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States, and civil actions between parties of diverse citizenship

where the amount in question exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Actions based on

diversity of citizenship shall be removed only if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which

the action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). An order remanding the case may require payment

Case 2:07-cv-01119-SMM Document 25 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

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 -

of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant resides in Chandler, Arizona. (Compl. ¶ 3.)

Defendant does not contradict this, as the Notice of Removal states that she is an individual

“residing part time in the State of Arizona” (Dkt. 1), and she indicates “Citizen of This State”

as her citizenship in the civil cover sheet. (Dkt. 2.) Both the Notice of Removal and the civil

cover sheet assert diversity of citizenship as the basis for federal over the case, 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a)(4). Therefore the case falls squarely within 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), and cannot be

removed because Defendant is a citizen “of the state in which the action is brought.” As

Plaintiff filed its motion to remand within 30 days after the Notice of Removal was filed, this

case should be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

Having determined that this case was improperly removed according to 28 U.S.C. §

1441(b), the Court finds it unnecessary to address Defendant’s additional arguments.

ATTORNEY FEES

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), allows for recovery of costs and attorney fees incurred as

a result of the removal. The Court finds such an award proper in this case, as removal was

clearly improper under the statute which formed Defendant’s basis for removal.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. 7), along

with the costs and fees incurred as a result of the removal;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing as moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

for Improper Venue (Dkt. 6), Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Dkts. 14,

16), and Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 21). 

//

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-01119-SMM Document 25 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to mail a certified

copy of this order to the clerk of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa

County, per 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

DATED this 9th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01119-SMM Document 25 Filed 10/10/07 Page 4 of 4