Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01205/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01205-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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 

The Lending Company, Inc., an Arizona 

corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs. 

John Craythorn, an individual, 

Defendant/Counterclaimant. 

No. CV 12-01205-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

John Craythorn, an individual, 

Third-Party Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Mark Nickel and Jane Doe Nickel, Dave 

Johnson and Jane Doe Johnson, and R.J. 

Reynolds and Jane Doe Reynolds, 

Third-Party Defendants.

Before the Court is The Lending Company’s Motion to Remand to State Court for 

Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 18), The Lending Company’s Rule 12(B)(1) Motion to 

Dismiss Counterclaim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 21), and Craythorn’s 

Motion for Leave to Amend Craythorn’s First Amended Verified Answer and 

Counterclaim (Doc. 23). 

The Lending Company’s motions assert that Craythorn was actually a citizen of 

Arizona at the time The Lending Company filed this action and that there is accordingly 

Case 2:12-cv-01205-NVW Document 27 Filed 07/26/12 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 

no diversity jurisdiction over this matter (Docs. 18, 21). The Lending Company makes 

this assertion based on a statement in Craythorn’s Answer that “Prior to leaving Arizona, 

Craythorn informed TLC’s lenders and various state and federal regulatory entities of his 

skepticism regarding TLC’s business practices. (April 21, 2012 Letter from Craythorn to 

Lenders/Agencies, attached hereto as “Exhibit 2”)” (Doc. 4 at 16). 

Craythorn seeks leave to file an amended Answer to delete the reference to “prior 

to leaving Arizona[,]” which he states is a “factual inaccuracy.” (Doc. 22.) Craythorn 

states that as of April 20, 2012, he was domiciled in Texas. The only opposition to 

Craythorn’s motion to amend is that he had not attached a red-lined version of the 

proposed amended pleading as required by LRCiv 15.1 (Doc. 25). However, Craythorn 

attached the proposed pleading to his reply (Doc. 26). The Court will therefore grant 

Craythorn’s motion to amend. 

The Lending Company’s motion to dismiss is duplicative of its motion to remand 

and will accordingly be dismissed. In light of Craythorn’s amended answer which omits 

the “prior to Arizona” reference on which The Lending Company based its motion to 

remand, The Lending Company shall either withdraw its motion to remand or reply to the 

arguments raised and evidence presented in Craythorn’s response to the motion to 

remand by August 6, 2012. If The Lending Company elects to file a reply, Craythorn is 

hereby given leave to file a surreply to that response by August 13, 2012. 

IT IS ORDERED that Craythorn’s Motion for Leave to Amend Craythorn’s First 

Amended Verified Answer and Counterclaim (Doc. 23) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that The Lending Company’s Rule 12(B)(1) Motion 

to Dismiss Counterclaim for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 21) is denied 

without prejudice to the determination on the merits of the jurisdictional issue on the 

motion to remand. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by August 6, 2012, The Lending Company 

either withdraw its Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 18) or 

file a reply to the arguments and evidence presented in support of diversity jurisdiction 

Case 2:12-cv-01205-NVW Document 27 Filed 07/26/12 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 

raised in Craythorn’s response to The Lending Company’s motion to remand (Doc. 23). 

If The Lending Company elects to file a reply, Craythorn is given leave to file a surreply 

by August 13, 2012. 

Dated this 26th day of July, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01205-NVW Document 27 Filed 07/26/12 Page 3 of 3