Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01304/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

Alan Singer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Harvey Duro, Sr., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-1304-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this matter to state court for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. For reasons stated below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background.

On May 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in Yuma County Superior

Court. Dkt. #1 at 8-13. On July 15, 2008, Defendants removed the case to this Court.

Dkt. #1 at 1-5. Plaintiff is a citizen of Arizona. Dkt. #1 at 8. All Defendants are citizens of

California. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff’s assignor, Mike Zinn, is a citizen of California, but is not

a party to this action. Id. Complete diversity exists between Plaintiff and Defendants. See

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

II. Legal Standard.

The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, provides:

[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . .

to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing

the place where such action is pending.

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 61 Filed 03/20/09 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

1

As an additional but non-dispositive matter, the assignment in this case is not an

“assignment for collection” within the meaning of Attorneys Trust, since Plaintiff alleges that

- 2 -

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“[A]ctions

that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the

defendant.”). In an action not involving a federal question, removal is proper where “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); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In an

action removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, diversity must exist at the time of

removal. See Comtec, Inc. v. Nat’l Technical Schs., 711 F. Supp. 522, 523 (D. Ariz. 1989)

(citing Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985)).

III. Discussion.

Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1359 to argue that Defendants removed this case to

federal court on the basis of “manufactured” diversity. Dkt. #44 at 3-7. Section 1359

provides that “[a] district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party,

by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the

jurisdiction of such court.” In cases involving assignments, including those made for

collection of a debt, section 1359 is violated when the party asserting federal jurisdiction

“improperly or collusively” enters into an assignment solely to create diversity jurisdiction.

See Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823, 826-28 (1969); cf. Syms v. Castleton

Indus., Inc., 470 F.2d 1078, 1088 (5th Cir. 1972) (“[U]nder Section 1359, any assignee can

sue in federal court so long as he was not improperly or collusively made a party in order to

invoke federal jurisdiction.”); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Sullivan, 846 F.2d 377, 382

(7th Cir. 1988) (“[I]f the assignment is not collusive or otherwise improper, the assignee’s

citizenship determines whether his suit is within the diversity jurisdiction.”). Here, the

assignee (Plaintiff) is not asserting federal jurisdiction and does not claim that the assignment

was collusive. Nor did the removing Defendants have any role in the assignment of Mr.

Zinn’s claim to Plaintiff.1

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 61 Filed 03/20/09 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

he, and not Mr. Zinn, is entitled to collect the full balance owed on the promissory note. See

Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., 93 F.3d 593, 597 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing

cases in which assignor retained interest in recovery); Dkt. #1 at 8-13. 

- 3 -

The primary problem § 1359 seeks to avoid is a real party in interest transferring his

interest to a diverse assignee solely to create federal court jurisdiction. The assignment in

this case was not made for that purpose.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. #44) is denied.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01304-DGC Document 61 Filed 03/20/09 Page 3 of 3