Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01220/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01220-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

Royce Corporation, d/b/a Royce Walls of

Phoenix, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Royal Insurance Company of America,

Inc.; Beazer Homes Sales Arizona, Inc.;

John and Jane Does I-X; Black and White

Business Entities I-X, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-05-1220-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently, before the Court are Defendant Beazer Home Sales Arizona, Inc.'s

(“Beazer”) motion to remand, (Dkt. #8), and Defendant Beazer's request for hearing and

ruling on motion to remand. (Dkt. #15). Having reviewed the motions, the Court issues the

following Order.

I. Factual & Procedural Background

On January 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in the Superior Court of the State

of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, seeking various declaratory judgments. On

April 22, 2005, before Plaintiff served Defendant Beazer, Defendant Royal Insurance

Company of America, Inc. (“Royal Insurance”) removed this action to the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On June 1, 2005, Defendant Beazer filed a motion to remand.

Case 2:05-cv-01220-MHM Document 18 Filed 09/27/05 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 -

II. Discussion

A defendant may remove a civil case from state to federal court if there is diversity

or federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) & (b). However, a defendant must

comply with the procedural requirements for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) . As

set forth in paragraph one of section 1446(b), a defendant must file a notice of removal of the

action within thirty days after receipt of a complaint which reveals the presence of a

substantial federal question or the existence of diversity. § 1446(b). Furthermore, where

there are multiple defendants, all defendants must join in the petition for removal; this

proposition is referred to as the “unanimity rule.” See Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific

Railway Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248 (1900). However, “defendants who are not served

may be ignored, both for jurisdictional purposes and for the purpose of requiring their joinder

in the notice of removal.” Asunto v. Shoup, 132 F. Supp.2d 445, 444 (E.D. La. 2000)

(quotations and citations omitted). A nonserved defendant may exercise its right to choose

the state court forum by making a motion to remand after being served with the complaint.

See 28 U.S.C. §1448 (providing “[t]his section shall not deprive any defendant upon whom

process is served after removal of his right to move to remand the case.”)

In the instant case, after Defendant Royal Insurance removed this action to federal

court, Defendant Beazer timely filed its motion to remand. Therefore, remand to state court

is appropriate because Defendant Beazer has timely exercised its right to choose the state

court forum. See §1448.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant Beazer's motion to remand is GRANTED.

(Dkt. #8).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Beazer's request for hearing and ruling on

motion to remand is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Dkt. #15). The Motion

is granted to the extent it requests a ruling on Defendant Beazer's motion to remand, which

Case 2:05-cv-01220-MHM Document 18 Filed 09/27/05 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 -

is contained herein. The motion is denied to the extent it requests a hearing because the

Court has determined a hearing on the issues presented is unnecessary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter to the Superior Court of the

State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01220-MHM Document 18 Filed 09/27/05 Page 3 of 3