Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01474/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
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 

Stardom Real Estate LLC, on behalf of 

Stardom Properties LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Neil Johnston, et al., 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-01474-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 

Superior 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 Neil 

Case 2:13-cv-01474-GMS Document 9 Filed 07/30/13 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 

Johnston (“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 MooreThomas 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 Queen 

Creek, 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 2:13-cv-01474-GMS Document 9 Filed 07/30/13 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 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court REMAND this action back to 

Maricopa County Superior Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

(Doc. 2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED finding the Expedited Motion to Remand (Doc. 6) 

as moot. 

 Dated this 30th day of July, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01474-GMS Document 9 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 3