Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00185/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00185-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

MetLife Home Loans, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Earl D. Maxie; Yvette Hernandez, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0185-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff MetLife Home Loans’ motion to remand (doc. 5),

defendants’ response (doc. 6) and motion to strike (doc. 7), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 12).

On January 20, 2011, MetLife filed an action against defendants in the Superior Court of

Arizona in Pinal County for forcible entry and detainer pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-1173, 12-

1173.01. MetLife asserted in the state court action that it purchased property, formerly

owned by defendants, at a trustee’s sale. MetLife gave defendants notice to vacate the

property, but the defendants failed to vacate. The forcible entry and detainer action followed.

Defendants removed the case to this court, asserting federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

It is clear that MetLife’s complaint for forcible entry and detainer arises under Arizona

law and does not present a federal question. Defendants’ generic reference to a federal

question in their notice of removal is insufficient to support removal. Moreover, we see no

Case 2:11-cv-00185-FJM Document 16 Filed 03/28/11 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 -

evidence to support defendants’ reliance on a counterclaim based on federal law. Even if

such a claim had been presented, however, it is well settled that a federal counterclaim cannot

serve as the basis for a district court’s federal question removal. Holmes Group, Inc. v.

Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831-32, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 1894 (2002). 

If a complaint does not present a federal question, “such action shall be removable

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). Because defendants purport

to be citizens of Arizona, this action is not removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. 5), and

DENYING defendants’ motion to strike (doc. 7).

It is further ORDERED REMANDING this case to the Superior Court of Arizona

in Pinal County.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00185-FJM Document 16 Filed 03/28/11 Page 2 of 2