Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01323/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01323-0/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

Daniel B. Scalf, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Gretchen I. Scalf, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01323-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion to amend petition for removal (doc. 6), and

the original notice of removal (doc. 1). Plaintiff did not file a response.

This action concerns the enforcement of a foreign divorce decree. Defendant removed

the action here on July 5, 2011. Defendant never alleged the basis for removal. It appears,

however, that defendant removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction because the notice of

removal claims that removal is proper because defendant is a citizen of Virginia and plaintiff

is a resident of Arizona. Defendant now moves to amend her notice of removal to make note

of a related case, Scalf v. Scalf, CV-11-00606, filed in this district. On August 2, 2011,

Judge Bolton denied defendant's motion to consolidate the two cases as moot (doc. 8).

We deny defendant's motion to amend the notice of removal because we lack subject

matter jurisdiction over the case. "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. §

Case 2:11-cv-01323-FJM Document 9 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

1447(c). Here, defendant removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the complaint

seeks enforcement of a foreign divorce decree. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 "divests the federal courts

of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees." Akenbrandt v. Richards,

502 U.S. 689, 703 112 S.Ct. 2206, 2215 (1992); Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court

Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the domestic relations exception

applies only to the diversity jurisdiction statute). Accordingly, we lack subject matter

jurisdiction over this case and must remand it to state court.

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to amend (doc. 6).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED REMANDING this action to the Superior Court of Arizona

in Maricopa County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01323-FJM Document 9 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 2