Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01978/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01978-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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 

United States Secretary for the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sandra Todd, et al. 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01978-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

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

jurisdiction over it; accordingly, the Court remands this case to Maricopa County Justice 

Courts/San Marcos Justice Court. 

 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 

Sandra Todd (“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 

Case 2:12-cv-01978-GMS Document 5 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

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 she 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 her address as the property at issue in this action (located in Chandler, 

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

See id. 

 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 shall REMAND the 

present action back to the Maricopa County Justice Courts/San Marcos Justice Court. 

 Dated this 18th day of September, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01978-GMS Document 5 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 2