Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08256/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08256-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

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

Robin Fleck, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 

et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV 10-8256-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

I. Motion to Dismiss. 

 Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. (“QLS”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim 

for an accounting (i.e., third claim for relief) under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) on 

grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege QLS owes Plaintiff a statutory or contractual duty 

for an accounting. Doc. 6. Plaintiff’s response, albeit voluminous, fails to address QLS’s 

duty-pleading argument and fails to assert that QLS has a duty to provide an accounting. 

Doc. 10. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 6, 10, 12. 

 Plaintiff has cited no law or statute that requires QLS to perform an accounting, 

and therefore has not met its burden of pleading a claim for which Plaintiff is entitled to 

relief. Cf. In re Schuster's Estate, 281 P. 38, 43 (Ariz. 1929) (noting that “[t]he particular 

powers and duties of a trustee are regulated by the terms of the instrument creating the 

trust”). The Court will, therefore, dismiss without prejudice the third claim of relief 

Case 3:10-cv-08256-DGC Document 17 Filed 03/08/11 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 

against QLS. 1

II. Motion to Remand. 

 Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in Arizona Superior Court for Yavapai County on 

November 29, 2010 (Doc. 1-1 at 4) and removed to this Court by three of the four 

defendants on December 27, 2010 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction (id. at 1-2). On 

January 18, 2011, Plaintiff moved to remand on several grounds, including that (1) failure 

of all defendants to join in the removal renders the removal procedurally defective, and 

(2) the Court should abstain from exercising diversity jurisdiction.2

 Doc. 9. 

 The next day, January 19, 2011, the remaining defendant, QLS, joined in the 

notice of removal. Doc. 11. Defendants also oppose remand (Docs. 13, 15), and the 

motion has been fully briefed (Docs. 11, 13-15). Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is 

denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the 

Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th 

Cir. 1998). 

 QLS’s joinder in removal cured the procedural defect and mooted Plaintiff’s first 

ground for remand. See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998), 

superseded by statute on other grounds. Plaintiff has not shown that the Court lacks 

diversity jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332: the complaint alleges complete 

diversity and prays for relief in excess of the jurisdictional threshold amount. Doc. 1-1 at 

4-5, 15-16 (alleging defendants to be foreign corporations and praying for general, 

compensatory, and punitive damages of $4,000,000). 

 Plaintiff also argues that this Court should abstain from exercising diversity 

jurisdiction under doctrines established in Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 

(1987), Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), La. 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

2

 Plaintiff’s other arguments are groundless in the context of this case. 

Case 3:10-cv-08256-DGC Document 17 Filed 03/08/11 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 

Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959), Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 

U.S. 315 (1943), R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Doc. 9. Plaintiff has 

failed to persuade the Court that any of these abstention doctrines apply here. This case 

is not brought under the Court’s equitable powers, is squarely within this Court’s 

diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not shown that a parallel state judicial proceeding is 

pending or that a state-court judgment has been entered on the issues before the Court, 

and Plaintiff has made no showing that this Court would be unable to apply state law to 

the issues before it, see Thibodaux, 360 U.S. at 27 (noting that “the mere difficulty of 

state law does not justify a federal court’s relinquishment of jurisdiction in favor of state 

court action”). The motion to remand will therefore be denied. 3

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. QLS’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted as stated above. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 9) is denied. 

 Dated this 8th day of March, 2011. 

 

3

 The Court need not address Defendants’ argument that federal-question jurisdiction lies in this case (Doc. 13 at 8-9). 

Case 3:10-cv-08256-DGC Document 17 Filed 03/08/11 Page 3 of 3