Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00690/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00690-2/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

CAPITAL ONE BANK, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-690 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R 

)

PAMELA SMETKA, and RICHARD )

SMETKA, husband and wife, )

)

Defendants. ) )

On March 9, 2005, Plaintiff Capital One Bank filed a debt

collection suit against Defendants Pamela Smetka and Richard Smetka

in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. Notice (doc.

# 1), Ex. 1. After waiting two years, Defendants attempted to

remove that case to federal court. Notice (doc. # 1). Since then,

they have been advised twice by this Court that their attempted

removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), meaning that even

if they were able to assert a valid basis for federal jurisdiction,

which they have not, the Court would still be without jurisdiction

to hear their case due to their failure to timely seek removal. 

The case was therefore remanded to the state court on May 21, 2007, 

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 13 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

a decision which the Court reaffirmed when it denied Defendants’

motion for reconsideration on June 13, 2007. See Orders (doc. 

## 8, 11). Undeterred, Defendants have filed a second motion to

reconsider (doc. # 12).

The relevant facts are set forth in great detail in the

Court’s prior orders (doc. ## 8, 11). The Court has given this

matter considered attention and has advised Defendants in very

clear language that their untimely request for removal renders it

impossible for this Court to hear their case. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b). Moreover, they have been advised that the Court does

not have any authority or discretion to overlook the extreme

tardiness of their removal efforts, because to do so would exceed

the bounds of its jurisdiction as established by Congress in the

removal statute. It should therefore come as no surprise that, for

the same reasons provided in the Court’s order of June 13, 2007

(doc. # 11), Defendants’ second motion for reconsideration (doc. 

# 12) will be denied.

Based on the Court’s prior orders, Defendants have been fully

aware and on notice of the incurable procedural defect of their

untimely removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). By persisting in their

efforts to have this Court perform the ultra vires act of

“reinstating” federal jurisdiction that never existed, it is

apparent that Defendants seek only to delay the inevitable at the

expense of limited governmental and judicial resources. Such

abusive conduct is violative of subparts (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and will not be

tolerated. If Defendants wish to continue filing repetitive and

meritless motions for the apparent purpose of harassing Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 13 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

and delaying the resolution of their state court litigation, the

Court will consider the use of monetary and non-monetary sanctions

as a deterrent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11©.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion for

reconsideration (doc. # 12) is DENIED.

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2007.

Copies to counsel of record and Defendants pro se

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 13 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 3