Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08081/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08081-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

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

Sebastian Craynon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CitiMortgage, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8081-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Before ruling on this request, the Court has twice required Plaintiff to amend his complaint

to allege federal subject matter jurisdiction. In response to this Court’s orders, on September

7, 2011, Plaintiff filed another amended complaint. 

In this amended complaint, Plaintiff again alleges diversity jurisdiction and federal

question jurisdiction. Taking diversity first, Plaintiff fails to allege a citizenship for himself,

and fails to allege Defendant CitiMortgage Inc.’s principal place of business. See Hertz

Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192; - - - U.S. - - - (2010). Plaintiff further fails to allege

any amount in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is inadequate to allege diversity

jurisdiction. Thus, despite the fact that subject matter jurisdiction premised on diversity

might be possible, having given Plaintiff two prior opportunities to amend, and Plaintiff still

failing to plead jurisdiction, the Court will not further advise Plaintiff how to plead his case.

Next, the Court will consider federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff brings a cause of

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 14 Filed 10/11/11 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 -

action for quiet title, which is a state law claim. Plaintiff cites several federal statutes that

he claims support his quiet title claim (Plaintiff never mentions to what he is seeking to quiet

title). Because Plaintiff at least attempts to premise his quiet title claim on Defendant’s

alleged violation of federal law, and construing Plaintiff’s amended complaint extremely

liberally, the Court finds Plaintiff has at least attempted to bring a claim under federal law.

This finding is without prejudice to Defendant raising any jurisdictional issues it deems

appropriate.

As a result of the Court finding jurisdiction has been pleaded,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)

without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor. Service by

waiver or of the summons and complaint shall be at government expense on the Defendant

by the U.S. Marshal or his authorized representative. Plaintiff shall complete and return all

necessary documents to effect service to the Clerk’s office (to forward to the Marshal) within

30 days of the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc.

10) is denied, without prejudice.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 14 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 2