Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00514/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00514-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AOM Group, LLC, Trustee of Goodyear

Land Trust, James Scrivano and Jeri R.

Scrivano Beneficiaries,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-00514-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand and Request for

an Award of Attorney Fees and Costs. (Dkt. # 8.) For the following reasons, the Court denies

the Motion and the requested attorney fees. 

DISCUSSION

On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff AOM Group (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in

Maricopa State Court alleging eighteen causes of action against the following defendants:

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Fidelity National Title Insurance Company; Perry and

Shapiro, LLP; Recontrust Company; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Ocwen

Loan Servicing, LLC; and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (otherwise known as

“Freddie Mac”). (Dkt # 8, Ex. A at 1.) Defendants subsequently filed a Notice of Removal,

alleging that this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt.

# 1.)

Case 2:10-cv-00514-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction in actions “arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For purposes of

removal jurisdiction, the Court must look at the case as of the time of removal. See Wisconsin

Dept. Of Corrections v. Schacht, 525 U.S. 381, 390 (1998). When this case was removed

from Maricopa County Superior Court, Plaintiff explicitly alleged that Defendants violated

five federal statutes: (1) the Home Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq.; (2) the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; (3) the Truth-in-Lending

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1605 et seq.; (4) the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681; and (5)

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. And while Plaintiffs have filed an

Amended Complaint, removing their federal claims (see Dkt. # 11), jurisdiction was still

proper at the time of removal. See Schacht, 525 U.S. at 390.

Additionally, because Plaintiff alleged its claims against Freddie Mac, removal of this

action to federal court was proper under 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f). See Am. Bankers Mortg.Corp.

v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg., 75 F.3d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1996) (observing that federal courts

have original jurisdiction over civil actions involving Freddie Mac); see also Ely Valley

Mines, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314–15 (9th Cir. 1981)

(holding that a federal officer or agency may unilaterally remove an entire case to federal

court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is without merit. Nevertheless, because

federal courts are required to remand cases when it becomes clear that they lack subjectmatter jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without

prejudice to its refiling should it become clear that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this

matter. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Remand is DENIED

without prejudice. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00514-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for an Award of Costs and

Attorney Fees is DENIED. 

DATED this 11th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00514-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 3