Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08162/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Anthony Joseph Kuc, Jr., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8162-PCT-DGC

ORDER

On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed a forcible

detainer action against Defendant Tony Kuc and several John Doe Defendants in Mohave

County Superior Court. Doc. 1-3 at 1-3. Kevin Chamberlain filed an answer as a real party

in interest. Doc. 1-3 at 88-89. Chamberlain then filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 1-4 at 15-

16) and a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 1-4 at 17-21). Defendant Kuc filed a

counterclaim against Plaintiff and multiple Counterdefendants in which he demanded to

inspect the original mortgage note. Doc. 1-4 at 88-93. On July 26, 2010, Mohave County

Superior Court dismissed Kuc’s counterclaim and struck the motion for summary judgment

filed by Chamberlain. Doc. 1-3 at 82-83. On August 9, 2010, the court entered judgment

for Plaintiff. Doc. 1-3 at 85-87.

On August 30, 2010, Kevin Chamberlain removed the case to this Court on the basis

of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 5) and a motion to void the judgment of Mohave County court (Doc. 6). 

Case 3:10-cv-08162-DGC Document 7 Filed 09/07/10 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 -

Pursuant to the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, any civil action brought in state

court over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to the

federal district court for the district where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts

strictly construe the statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,

566 (9th Cir. 1992). Indeed, there is a “strong presumption” against removal and “[f]ederal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

instance.” Id. “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. § 1447(c).

In an action involving diversity jurisdiction, removal is proper “only if none of the

parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which

such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Chamberlain has

not identified the citizenship of Defendants in his pleadings, but it appears that Kuc and

Chamberlain are both citizens of Arizona – the State where the action was brought. See Doc.

6 at 1 (listing Chamberlain’s address as 3219 Yavapai Street in Kingman, Arizona); Doc 1-4

at 47 (listing Kuc’s address as 5804 Kingman Reef Lane in Kingman, Arizona). As a result,

removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction was improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Nor does the Court have federal question jurisdiction. The state court dismissed

Kuc’s counterclaim and entered judgment for Plaintiff on the forcible detainer action.

Doc. 1-3 at 1-3; Doc. 1-3 at 85-87. Because Kuc’s counterclaim was dismissed, it cannot

provide the basis for subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s forcible detainer action does

not arise under federal law. See Doc. 1-3 at 1-3. Plaintiff sought immediate possession of

the property under Arizona law. See A.R.S. § 12-1173.01. “By unimpeachable authority,

a suit brought upon a state statute does not arise under an act of Congress or the Constitution

of the United States[.]” Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 116 (1936).

Because removal based on diversity jurisdiction was improper, and the Court lacks

federal question jurisdiction, this case will be remanded. The Court will not rule on other

pending motions.

Case 3:10-cv-08162-DGC Document 7 Filed 09/07/10 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that this action is remanded to Mohave County Superior Court.

DATED this 7th day of September, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08162-DGC Document 7 Filed 09/07/10 Page 3 of 3