Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01399/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

Federal National Mortgage Association, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Raymond J. Dumont, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-01399-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) filed July 14, 2011, is untimely on its

face. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the notice of removal must be filed within thirty days

after receipt by the defendant. The Notice of Removal states that Defendants are

removing an action pending in Maricopa County Superior Court filed on June 28, 2011,

with case number CV2010-024464, but Defendants have attached the Complaint filed in

Superior Court case number CV2010-024464, which indicates that it was filed on August

30, 2010. Superior Court records show that an affidavit of service was filed on

September 22, 2010.

Further, the Notice of Removal here alleges diversity jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C.

§ 1332 and that “Defendants are citizens of the State of Arizona.” If the only basis for

removal is diversity jurisdiction, the action is removable only if none of the defendants is

a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Moreover,

the Notice of Removal does not allege any facts regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship.

Case 2:11-cv-01399-NVW Document 6 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Finally, the Notice of Removal of this action for forcible detainer after trustee’s

sale does not allege facts to support its conclusion that “the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000.” The Complaint seeks judgment awarding Plaintiff the right to

immediate possession of the property and a writ of restitution to restore possession of the

property to Plaintiff. Because the sole issue in a forcible detainer action is the right of

possession, not title, there is no amount in controversy in the absence of other relief

sought. See A.R.S. § 12-1177(A). 

Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if subject matter

jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 653 (9th

Cir. 1998). The removing party bears the burden of establishing subject matter

jurisdiction as a basis for removal. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195

(9th Cir. 1988). To satisfy this burden, the removing party must demonstrate that either

diversity or federal question jurisdiction existed at the time of removal. Hunter v. Philip

Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). If at any

time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, the case must be remanded. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(c).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants show by July 29, 2011, why this

action should not be remanded to the Superior Court. 

DATED this 15th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01399-NVW Document 6 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 2