Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00596/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00596-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

PNC Bank, National Association, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

David Branch; John Doe Occupant 1

(whose real name is John Moreau), 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-596-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the amended notice of removal, the response, and the reply,

all of which were filed in response to this Court’s orders which questioned this Court

jurisdiction to hear this case. The Court’s questions arose based on the fact that removing

party, Moreau, alleged jurisdiction based on his defense to the state court Forcible Detainer

action brought by Plaintiff. Specifically, Moreau argues that the Protecting Tenants at

Foreclosure Act of 2009 (12 U.S.C. § 5220 (notes)) is the basis for his defense to his

eviction.

As the Court previously noted: jurisdiction must be based on the allegations of the

complaint. See Takeda v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, n. 9 (9th Cir. 1985)

(“[U]nder the present statutory scheme as it has existed since 1887, a defendant may not

remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises

under’ federal law.”) (quoting Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation

Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)).

Case 2:11-cv-00596-JAT Document 12 Filed 07/22/11 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 -

In his amended notice of removal, Moreau argued two bases for jurisdiction: 1) the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; and 2) complete preemption by the Protecting

Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009. The Court required Plaintiff to respond to these

arguments. Plaintiff asserts that none of its claims, nor any of Moreau’s defenses, are based

on the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Court agrees and finds that the Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure

Act of 2009 did not completely preempt the jurisdiction of state courts whenever a foreclosed

property is occupied by a tenant. In fact, as Plaintiff notes, the Act specifically allows State

laws that are more favorable to the tenant. See 42 U.S.C. 1437f (2009 Amendments).

Therefore, the Court finds that there is not complete preemption.

Thus, the Court concludes that there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction

in the case. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED remanding this case to Maricopa County Superior Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00596-JAT Document 12 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 2