Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08042/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

Renee Jewell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; BAC

Home Loan Servicing LP; Mortgage

Electronic Registration Services, Inc.;

Recontrust Company, NA; Bank of New

York Mellon, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8042-PCT-JAT

ORDER

“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every

case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th

Cir. 2003). In this case, Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction based on “in rem” principles aNd

admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Doc. 1 at 2-3.

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 is admiralty jurisdiction. “Admiralty was the

result of commerce on the high seas; the commerce made possible by sailing vessels. Just

as vessels were the source of admiralty, they remained the focal point of admiralty

jurisdiction. In very general terms, admiralty jurisdiction relates to things occurring on or

to vessels or as a result of the employment of vessels.” Luna v. Star of India, 356 F.Supp.

59, 63 (D.C. Cal. 1973) (citing McGuire v. City of New York, 192 F.Supp. 866, 871

(S.D.N.Y. 1961)). Therefore, because this case deals with an action on land, it does not fall

Case 3:11-cv-08042-JAT Document 4 Filed 04/06/11 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 -

within this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.

With respect to Plaintiff’s reference to “in rem” proceedings, the Supplemental Rules

reference in rem proceedings. Like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supplemental

Rules are procedural rules. Typically, the Supplemental Rules apply only to maritime or

admiralty activities. However, in limited circumstances, the Supplemental Rules apply to

actions on land. Specifically, the Supplemental Rules apply to in rem actions when such

actions are: 1. To enforce any maritime lien , or 2. Whenever a statute of the United States

provides for a maritime action in rem or a proceeding analogous thereto. Supplemental Rule

C(1)(a)-(b). With respect to the second circumstance when the Supplemental Rules apply,

28 U.S.C. § 2461(b) provides, “Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a

forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the

seizure takes place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction of the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but

in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which

shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.” Thus, when there is a civil

forfeiture as a result of a violation of federal law, unless Congress specifies otherwise, the

Supplemental Rules dictate the procedures that must be followed. In this case, there was not

a seizure that resulted from a violation of federal law; therefore, the Supplemental Rules do

not apply.

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to allege a proper basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

However, on the face of the complaint, it appears the Court may have jurisdiction based on

diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient

facts for this Court to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Specifically, Plaintiff must plead her own state citizenship, the citizenship of any

corporations (Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192; - - - U.S. - - - (2010)), the

citizenship of any partnerships (Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)),

and the amount in controversy (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). Thus,

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-08042-JAT Document 4 Filed 04/06/11 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 by May 4, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed without

prejudice.

DATED this 6th day of April, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08042-JAT Document 4 Filed 04/06/11 Page 3 of 3