Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00048/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00048-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

U.S. Bank National Association,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kevin Main, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-0048-PHX-DKD 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Defendant Kevin Main has removed the above-captioned matter from the Superior 

Court of Arizona. Defendant asserts that federal jurisdiction exists based upon the 

alleged federal question grounds set forth in what may be construed as Defendant’s 

counterclaim. The Court’s jurisdictional analysis, however, must be focused solely on 

the jurisdictional grounds asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. 

Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[R]emovability cannot be created by defendant 

pleading a counterclaim presenting a federal question”); U.S. Bank Nat. Assoc. v. 

Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 2012 WL 6158609 (D. Ha. Nov. 16, 2012). 

This removed Complaint solely asserts a state claim for forcible entry and detainer and 

thus does not allege any basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

Case 2:15-cv-00048-DKD Document 3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of 

Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa. 1

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 4th day of February, 2015. 

cc: SRB 

 

1

 This Recommendation is submitted to the Presiding Judge for the Phoenix Division because in the absence of the parties’ consent, the undersigned does not have jurisdiction to address this issue. The Court also notes that the District of Arizona 

recently remanded another case removed by this Defendant. See CV-14-02679-PHX-JJT 

at Doc 5. 

Case 2:15-cv-00048-DKD Document 3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 2