Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02066/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO)

---

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 

Steven J. Colucci and Alison M. Fry,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., a California 

corporation; et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV10-2066-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On August 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an action in the Arizona Superior Court for 

Maricopa County against SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (“SunTrust”) alleging violations of 

federal and Arizona laws. Doc. 1-1. Although SunTrust was not served with process 

(Doc. 1 at 2:7), it removed the action to this Court on September 27, 2010 on the basis of 

federal-question and diversity jurisdiction (id. at 2:20, 3:5). SunTrust subsequently filed 

an answer (Doc. 7), the Court held a case management conference (Doc. 11), and 

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 1, 2011 (Doc. 13). 

 On July 20, 2011, the Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice 

as to Defendants SunTrust and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 

(“MERS”) on joint stipulation by the parties. Doc. 45. The joint stipulation states that 

Plaintiffs dismiss without prejudice “all claims against Defendants SunTrust Mortgage, 

Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.” Doc. 44 at 1:24-26. Some of the 

claims pled in the amended complaint against SunTrust or MERS also name as parties 

Case 2:10-cv-02066-DGC Document 48 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

one or more of the following: Branch Banking & Trust (“BBT”), TSA Title Agency 

(“TSA”), and MAX Default Services Corp. (“MAX”). Doc. 13. Plaintiffs have now 

confirmed that their dismissal of MERS and SunTrust leaves intact the claims against 

BBT, TSA, and MAX. Doc. 47. 

 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) has been filed by BBT (Doc. 28), and the 

motion is joined by TSA and MAX (Docs. 32, 38). BBT argues in part that Plaintiffs’ 

claims are barred by Arizona statute A.R.S. § 33-811(C). Doc. 28 at 4. Plaintiffs oppose 

(Doc. 33), and BBT filed a reply (Doc. 39). The parties do not request oral argument. 

 The amended complaint alleges only claims under Arizona law (Doc. 13), thereby 

eliminating federal-question jurisdiction. The amended complaint also pleads claims 

against TSA, which is alleged to be an Arizona corporation (id. at ¶ 5) – an allegation 

TSA admits in its answer (Doc. 30 at 2:5). The lack of complete diversity eliminates this 

Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 With federal-question and diversity jurisdiction no longer available, the Court 

concludes this case should be remanded to state court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. 

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims 

are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to 

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” (citing United Mine Workers 

of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966))). Resolution of the remaining state-law 

claims will require application of Arizona law. Because Arizona state courts have a 

greater interest and expertise in resolving state-law issues, remanding this case will 

further principles of comity. Additionally, remand will benefit the federal system by 

allowing this Court to devote its scarce resources to resolving federal issues. 

 Because the Court is remanding this case to state court, it will leave the pending 

motion to dismiss to be decided by the state court. 

Case 2:10-cv-02066-DGC Document 48 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court. 

 Dated this 10th day of August, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-02066-DGC Document 48 Filed 08/10/11 Page 3 of 3