Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02069/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02069-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

Terry Tapp; Ben Koerner; Realty

Executives, Inc., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Adebisi Alli,

Defendant, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2069-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Defendant Adebisi Alli has filed a Notice of Removal, seeking to remove Moon

Valley Justice Court Case No. CC2011144405 to the Federal District Court of Arizona. (Doc.

1). Since removal is improper because the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over

the case, the Court remands this action.

BACKGROUND

On July 21, 2011, Plaintiffs Terry Tapp, Ben Koerner, and Realty Executives, Inc.

filed a complaint in the Moon Valley Justice Court against Defendant, seeking $3,454 for

fraud and harassment. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1(B)). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was

denied on October 6, 2011. (Doc. 1, Exs. 1, 9). Defendant then filed a Notice of Removal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (2006), stating that she is a citizen of the state of Michigan and

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7, 11).

Case 2:11-cv-02069-GMS Document 5 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

Any time that the Court determines, on motion or on its own, that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction to hear a case, it must dismiss the action. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). “The

party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.” Indus.

Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen.

Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). A civil action may only be removed

to federal court if federal jurisdiction would have been proper had the complaint originally

been filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Federal jurisdiction is proper in all cases that present a federal question on the face

of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006). In addition, the Court has subject-matter

jurisdiction to rule on cases in which defendants and plaintiffs are citizens of different states

and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006). If the claim

on the face of the complaint is for greater than $75,000, the amount in controversy

requirement is met if the claim is made in good faith. If, however, “from the face of the

pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover” an amount

adequate to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, dismissal is proper. St. Paul

Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938).

2. Analysis

As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Defendant has the burden of proving all

jurisdictional facts. Indus. Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1092. Defendant provides a copy of her

Michigan Driver’s license, along with a 28-page complaint she filed against Plaintiffs in

Wayne County, Michigan on August 9, 2011 in which she states that she is a citizen of

Michigan. (Doc. 1, Exs. 5(B), 3). In that suit, Defendant states that while living in Michigan,

she paid a deposit on a rental apartment in Phoenix of $2,215. She claims that the apartment

was uninhabitable because of mold and other issues, and that Plaintiffs failed to return her

deposit upon demand. She seeks $450,000 on each of five counts, including Breach of

Contract, Tortious Interference with Advantageous Expectancy, Fraud and Fraudulent

Case 2:11-cv-02069-GMS Document 5 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Inducement, Conversion, Retaliation, and violation of Michigan State Civil Rights Laws.

Now claiming that her Michigan complaint and the present complaint arise from the same

transaction, she states that she satisfied the amount in controversy requirement because she

“seeks recovery of at lease [sic] two million dollars.” (Doc. 1 ¶10). Additionally, she has

attached a counterclaim, alleging many of the same claims she lodged in the Michigan

complaint, along with her answer. (Doc. 4).

It appears that Defendant is in fact a citizen of the State of Michigan. However,

Plaintiffs claim of only $3,454 is inadequate to satisfy the amount in controversy

requirement. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1(B)). Defendant’s Michigan suit, which she acknowledges

contains “different cause of action and different claims,”(Doc. 1 ¶ 10), cannot be removed

to an Arizona district court, since state court actions can only be removed “to the district

court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action

is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The amount alleged in her counterclaim may not be

considered in determining whether she has satisfied the amount in controversy requirement.

Mesa Indus., Inc. v. Eaglebrook Prods., Inc., 980 F. Supp. 323, 326–27 (D. Ariz. 1997). In

any event, the only tangible damages Defendant identifies in her Michigan complaint and her

counterclaim are the loss of her $2,215 deposit and $6,700 “for additional expenses and

interest.” It appears to a legal certainty that she cannot recover the amount she claims; a

claim of over two million dollars as compensation for $8,915 in actual loss is not “apparently

made in good faith.” St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. 288. Defendant has not met her burden of

proving jurisdictional facts to this Court. Indus. Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1090. Since the Court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim, it will be remanded to the Moon Valley

Justice Court.

CONCLUSION

The federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because, while the

parties are diverse, the amount in controversy is under $75,000.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to remand this

case to the Moon Valley Justice Court and terminate this action.

Case 2:11-cv-02069-GMS Document 5 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

DATED this 17th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-02069-GMS Document 5 Filed 11/17/11 Page 4 of 4