Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08107/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08107-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Pascal Laveyne, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-08107-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 The present action was improperly removed and the Court lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction over it. Accordingly, the Court remands this case to Coconino County 

Superior Court for the following reasons. 

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

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

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

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

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

 Although the Notice of Removal states that a claim in the present action arises 

under federal law, a review of the complaint reveals that it is a straightforward forcible 

detainer, otherwise known as an eviction action. And while it appears that Defendant 

Case 3:14-cv-08107-GMS Document 5 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

Steven Hardman (“Defendant”) may assert a federal defense based on due process, the 

assertion of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not convert the state-law claim 

into one “arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See 

Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing 

the “well-pleaded complaint rule”). Therefore, the Court has no federal question 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring on federal courts subject-matter 

jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law). 

 To the extent that the Notice of Removal purports to invoke the Court’s diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are also 

not satisfied. In order to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must 

show both that he and plaintiff are not residents of the same state, and that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for 

diversity jurisdiction). In addition, even when there is diversity between the parties, a 

federal court may not exercise jurisdiction where the moving defendant is a resident of 

the forum state. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, the Court need not decide whether there is 

diversity between the parties or whether the amount in controversy requirement is met as 

Defendant reports his address as the property at issue in this action (located in Flagstaff, 

Arizona); thus, he is clearly a forum defendant who may not remove a state-court action. 

See id. 

 Furthermore, to the extent that Defendant is attempting to appeal the state court’s 

final judgment in the forcible detainer action, jurisdiction would not be proper in this case 

because federal jurisdiction is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Albrecht v. 

Case 3:14-cv-08107-GMS Document 5 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

Demuniz, 315 F. App’x 654, 2009 WL 2914215, at *1 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming the 

district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a pro se defendant’s appeal of a state court 

judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars 

federal district courts from considering “cases brought by state-court losers complaining 

of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings 

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon 

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005). 

 In the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court is empowered to sua 

sponte order summary remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (requiring district courts to 

examine notices of removal and their exhibits and authorizing summary remand in 

appropriate circumstances); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring district courts to remand cases 

if it appears, at any time before final judgment is entered, that the court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court REMAND this 

action back to Coconino County Superior Court. 

 Dated this 30th day of June, 2014. 

Case 3:14-cv-08107-GMS Document 5 Filed 06/30/14 Page 3 of 3