Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00642/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00642-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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 

Will Graven, a single man,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Mike Martin; Dan Wallner; and Bill Emery, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-00642-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are “Defendant Mike Martin’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 9), 

“Defendant Dan Wallner’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 10), and “Notice of Motion and 

Motion of Bill Emery to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)” 

(Doc. 23). Because subject matter jurisdiction does not exist over Plaintiff’s complaint, 

the Court will grant these motions. 

I. FACTS 

In 1992, the federal government decommissioned George Air Force Base, in 

Victorville, California. 58 Fed. Reg. 58543 (1993). The runways and related facilities 

became the Southern California Logistics Airport, which is used for commercial air 

cargo, 64 Fed. Reg. 72642 (1999), and reputedly for transporting military units. 

According to Plaintiff Will Graven, the Airport leases the land from the Air Force, the 

Air Force “yet maintains a presence on, control over, and provides funds to the 

Base/Airport,” and the FAA “also provides funds to the Airport.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 2–4.) 

Plaintiff Graven is an Arizona resident and the primary shareholder of two 

companies that did business at the Airport. Somehow, one of Graven’s companies (the 

Case 2:11-cv-00642-NVW Document 30 Filed 06/30/11 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 

complaint does not specify which one) came into a possession of a pile of rubble at the 

Airport — apparently the remains of certain demolished buildings. If crushed into 

smaller pieces, this rubble “had significant value as high quality aggregate base material 

[later determined to have a value of $85,000].” (Id. ¶ 52 (bracketed clause in original).) 

Graven alleges that, between May and September 2006, Defendant Martin (a Arizona 

resident), Defendant Wallner (a California resident), and Defendant Emery (a California 

resident) swindled Graven’s company out of this rubble through a certain scheme, the 

details of which are not relevant to this motion to dismiss.1

Graven’s companies have assigned their causes of action to him personally, and he 

now sues those allegedly responsible for the following causes of action: (1) “Receipt of 

Stolen Property”; (2) “Conspiracy to Commit Conversion”; (3) “Conversion”; (4) 

“Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy”; (5) “Intentional Interference With an Existing 

Contract”; (6) “Various Forms of Fraud”; (7) “Forgery”; (8) “Breach of the Covenant of 

Good Faith and Fair Dealing”; (9) “Bad Faith”; and (10) “Unjust Enrichment.” 

Defendants have moved to dismiss. All Defendants claim lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Wallner and Emery also claim other defenses, such as lack of personal 

jurisdiction (alleging lack of minimum contacts with Arizona) and res judicata (based on 

now-dismissed bankruptcy proceedings relating Graven and/or his companies). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Generally speaking (and as 

relevant to this case), federal courts may only hear “civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or “civil actions 

where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . between . . . 

citizens of different States,” id. § 1332(a)(1). 

 1

 Declarations and proofs of service establish Defendants’ respective residencies. 

(See Docs. 23–26.) 

Case 2:11-cv-00642-NVW Document 30 Filed 06/30/11 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 

III. ANALYSIS 

Graven’s causes of action do not arise under federal law, nor do they raise a 

substantial federal question. The only possible connection to federal law is the fact that 

the rubble was piled up on what used to be an Air Force base. Allegedly, the Air Force 

still owns the land, but it leases it to a California municipal entity. This does not 

“necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal 

forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal 

and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & 

Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction does not 

exist. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Nor does diversity jurisdiction exist. Graven and Defendant Martin are both 

citizens of Arizona. Accordingly, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction based on the 

diversity of the parties’ citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

In sum, Graven’s complaint, as currently pleaded, can only be brought in a state 

court. Graven cannot sue on these causes of action in federal court. His complaint will 

therefore be dismissed. Given the foregoing, the Court will not reach the Defendants’ 

other arguments for dismissal. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that “Defendant Mike Martin’s Motion to 

Dismiss” (Doc. 9), “Defendant Dan Wallner’s Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 10), and “Notice 

of Motion and Motion of Bill Emery to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)” (Doc. 23) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED 

without prejudice to refiling in a court of proper jurisdiction. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 30th day of June, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00642-NVW Document 30 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 3