Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00690/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00690-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

CAPITAL ONE BANK, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-690 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R 

)

PAMELA SMETKA, and RICHARD )

SMETKA, husband and wife, )

)

Defendants. ) )

This matter arises out of a debt collection suit originally

filed in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County by

Plaintiff Capital One Bank on March 9, 2005. Notice (doc. # 1),

Ex. 1. On April 3, 2007, Defendants Pamela Smetka and Richard

Smetka, appearing pro se, attempted to remove the action to this

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335, 1348, 1441 and 1446. On May

14, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to quash a civil arrest warrant

that had been issued by the state court for their failure to appear

at an April 25, 2007 hearing before that court. Mot. (doc. # 6). 

By order entered May 21, 2007, the Court denied that and other

motions in this case, and remanded the matter to the Superior Court

of Arizona in Maricopa County. Order (doc. # 8). Specifically,

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/13/07 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 -

the Court noted that Defendants' notice of removal, filed more than

two years after litigation began in state court, was untimely, and

that Defendants had failed to assert any valid basis for federal

jurisdiction. Id. Defendants seek reconsideration of that order. 

Mot. (doc. # 9). Having carefully considered the arguments raised,

the Court now rules.

The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is

left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Sch. Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993). Such motions are disfavored and, absent exceptional

circumstances, are generally only appropriate "if the district

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2)

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

law." Id.

Defendants' motion is not based on any intervening change in

controlling law. Defendants suggest that the Court may have

committed clear error or taken actions that were manifestly unjust

by construing Plaintiff's objection to the notice of removal (doc.

# 4) as a motion to remand, and granting the motion as construed in

that manner. See Mot. (doc. # 9) at 2. Defendants have not

offered any explanation as to how this action constituted any abuse

of discretion on the part of the Court, and, in any event, the

result would have been the same had the Court not construed

Plaintiff's objection (doc. # 4) as a motion to remand. Quite

simply, the Court is not at liberty to proceed when it is apparent

from the facts before it that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

and must refrain from exceeding its judicial authority by

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/13/07 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 -

dismissing or, in the case of cases removed from state court,

remanding the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c) ("If at any time before final judgment it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

remanded."). If not by the motion of either party, such action

must be taken of the Court's own initiative.

Defendants suggest for the first time that the Court may have

exercised jurisdiction over this matter under the diversity

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and for other reasons. Mot. (doc. # 9)

at 2. Defendants' notice of removal (doc. # 1) does not discuss

these theories of jurisdiction as the basis for which removal was

sought, and an examination of the complaint from the state court

demonstrates that there is no validity to these belatedly offered

bases for jurisdiction. See Notice (doc. # 1), Ex. 1. Even if

Defendants were able to assert a valid basis for federal

jurisdiction, the Court emphasizes that their decision to wait over

two years since the initiation of the litigation in the state court

makes it impossible for them to legitimately remove the case to

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The relatively short

window of time within which removal could have been attempted has

long since passed.

Finally, Defendants' motion is not based on any newly

discovered evidence. Rather, they have submitted evidence that

they gave notice to the state court of their removal on May 2,

2007. As this notice was filed after the April 25, 2007 state

court hearing that Defendants failed to attend, resulting in the

issuance of the civil arrest warrant, there is obviously no basis

to upset the Court's prior decision to remand the case and deny

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/13/07 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 -

Defendants' motion to quash (doc. # 6).

Defendants having failed to demonstrate any valid basis for

reconsideration of the Court's May 21, 2007 order (doc. # 8)

remanding this case to the state court and denying Defendants'

motion to quash (doc. # 6),

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion for

reconsideration (doc. # 9) is DENIED.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2007.

Copies to counsel of record and Defendants pro se

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 11 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 4