Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00619/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00619-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

Steven C. Walker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jose Chavarria, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00619-PHX-JZB

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 5.) Defendant 

Jose Chavarria improperly removed the present action and the Court lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction over it. Accordingly, the Court will set aside the Clerk of Court’s entry of 

default against Defendant Chavarria and remand this case back to Yuma County Justice 

Court.1

I. Background 

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action for forcible detainer against 

Defendants Chavarria and Jasmin Rodriguez in Yuma County Justice Court, pursuant to 

A.R.S. §§ 12-1171, et seq. (Doc. 1-1.) On April 6, 2015, Defendant Chavarria removed 

the action to this Court, without the consent of Defendant Rodriguez, asserting that this 

Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 1.) On April 16, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this matter back to Yuma County Justice Court, 

 

1

 Because Defendant Chavarria has not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, this Court issues an Order on Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Remand. See General Order 

11-03. 

Case 2:15-cv-00619-JZB Document 13 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

arguing that the removal was improper and this Court does not have subject-matter 

jurisdiction over this case. (Doc. 5.) Defendant Chavarria has not responded to 

Plaintiff’s Motion. 

On May 15, 2015, District Judge Susan R. Bolton ordered Defendant to appear on 

June 15, 2015, to show cause for his failure to comply with Rule 3.7(b) of the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 7.) However, Defendant failed to appear for the show 

cause hearing. (Doc. 8.) On June 16, 2015, Judge Bolton ordered Defendant Chavarria 

to show cause in writing within seven days of the date of the Order why his answer 

should not be stricken and default should not be entered against him for his failure to 

comply with the Court’s Order. (Doc. 9.) On June 26, 2015, after Defendant failed to 

respond to the Court’s Order, Judge Bolton directed the Clerk to strike his Answer and 

enter default against him. (Doc. 10.) On the same day, the Clerk entered default against 

Defendant Chavarria. (Doc. 12.) Since that time, he has not appeared or sought to set 

aside the default entered against him. 

II. Discussion 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction 

only over those matters specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As the proponent of the 

Court’s jurisdiction, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing it. Abrego

Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 Although Defendant Chavarria asserts in the Notice of Removal that a claim in the 

present action arises under federal law, a review of the Complaint reveals that it is a 

straightforward forcible detainer action, otherwise known as an eviction action. (See

Docs. 1, 1-1.) Further, although Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s pleading “intentionally 

fails to allege compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1968,” and Defendant may assert a 

federal defense if this action proceeds, the assertion of a federal defense to a state-law 

claim does not convert the state-law claim into one “arising under” federal law for 

purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 

Case 2:15-cv-00619-JZB Document 13 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing the “well-pleaded complaint rule”). 

Therefore, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

(conferring on federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over cases arising under federal 

law). 

 Defendant Chavarria does not assert that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over 

this action. And, even considering whether such jurisdiction exists here under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332, the Court finds that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not satisfied. In 

order to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must show both that he is 

not a citizen of the same state as Plaintiff, and that the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction). In 

addition, even where there is diversity between the parties, a federal court may not 

exercise jurisdiction if the moving defendant is a resident of the forum state. 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(b). Here, the Complaint and Notice of Removal do not assert or establish diversity 

of citizenship between the parties. (Docs. 1, 1-1.). Further, Plaintiff requests monetary 

relief far below the $75,000 minimum amount in controversy. (Doc. 1-1.) Finally, 

Defendant Chavarria’s address is listed as the property at issue in this action (located in 

Yuma, Arizona); thus, he appears to be a forum defendant who may not remove a statecourt action. See id. 

In the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must set aside the default 

entered against Defendant Chavarria and remand this matter back to Yuma County 

Justice Court. See Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985) (a district court’s 

judgment is void where the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to render the 

judgment); Yan v. General Pot, Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 997, 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“Thus, 

with no subject-matter jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims, the entry of default 

against Defendants is void . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring district courts to remand 

Case 2:15-cv-00619-JZB Document 13 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

cases if it appears, at any time before final judgment is entered, that the court lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction).2

 

 Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court’s entry of default against Defendant 

Chavarria (Doc. 12) is set aside. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 5) is 

granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court remand this action back 

to Yuma County Justice Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in District 

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2015. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

 

2

 Plaintiff also asserts that remand is appropriate because Ms. Rodriguez, the other Defendant named in the Complaint, did not consent to the removal. (Doc. 5.) However, 

it is not clear to the Court based on the documents submitted whether Ms. Rodriguez was properly served with the Complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-00619-JZB Document 13 Filed 12/02/15 Page 4 of 4