Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01090/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01090-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Paul, Jr. and Kristeen Paul, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

ReconTrust Company; Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc.; Fidelity National Mortgage

Company; Federal National Mortgage

Association, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1090-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) and

Defendants’ Motion to Summarily Grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 12). For the

reasons discussed below, the motions are granted.

BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2011, this action was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court

because the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

(Doc. 1). On June 7, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 6). Plaintiffs’

Response to the motion was due fourteen days later on June 21, 2011, but was never filed.

LRCiv 7.2. After this deadline had passed, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking for

an extension until fourteen days after their Motion for Remand had been decided. (Doc. 10).

Since Plaintiffs had never filed such a motion, the motion for an extension was denied. (Doc.

11). On July 25, Defendants filed a Motion to Summarily Grant Defendants’ Motion to

Case 2:11-cv-01090-GMS Document 13 Filed 11/16/11 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 -

Dismiss, to which Plaintiffs also have failed to respond. (Doc. 12).

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

The Arizona District Court requires parties to file a responsive memorandum within

fourteen days after a motion has been filed, unless otherwise ordered by the court. LRCiv

7.2(d). Failure do to so “may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and

the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). “Failure to follow a district

court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th

Cir. 1995).

A case may be properly removed from state court if the district court could have

exercised original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2006). A district court has original

jurisdiction if the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs alleged in their emergency motion that removal was improper and that this

court therefore has “no jurisdiction over the Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 10). They did not,

however, file a motion to remand or make any other argument explaining why jurisdiction

is improper. In their original state court complaint, Plaintiffs stated that they are citizens of

Arizona, that Countrywide, Recontrust, and Fidelity are California corporations, and that

Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) is a government-secured entity. (Doc. 1,

Ex. A ¶¶ 1–6). They name numerous John Does, Black Corporations, and Black Partnerships,

but have never identified such parties, served them, or argued that they are Arizona citizens

and therefore eliminate complete diversity of citizenship. In it, they further stated that the

foreclosure sale that they sought to have voided yielded $119,738.24, thereby asserting an

amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. (Doc. 1, Ex. A ¶ 30).Removal was therefore

proper and the Court has jurisdiction to rule on Defendants’ motions.

Plaintiffs filed no response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Although they filed a

motion for an extension asking the Court to allow them to file their response fourteen days

Case 2:11-cv-01090-GMS Document 13 Filed 11/16/11 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 -

after their purported remand motion was resolved, they in fact never filed a remand motion.

They did not file a response to Defendants’ July 25, 2011 motion asking the Court to

summarily grant their original motion to dismiss based on Plaintiffs’ lack of responsiveness.

Plaintiffs have failed to adhere to the local rules, and “such non-compliance may be deemed

a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). It is therefore proper to dismiss this action with prejudice. See

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs have failed to file a response to a motion to dismiss filed over five months

ago. This action is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Summarily Grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

12) is granted.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01090-GMS Document 13 Filed 11/16/11 Page 3 of 3