Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00468/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00468-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christina Zandonatti, an unmarried

woman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MERS, as nominee for PRO30 Funding

(Original Lender); EMC Mortgage Corp.

(Attorney in Fact for Beneficiary);

Quality Loan Service Corp. (Substitute

Trustee); Red House Lending, Inc.

(Mortgage Broker), Unknown parties, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-468-TUC-DCB (BPV)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion to remand filed by the Plaintiff, Christina

Zandonatti, on September 7, 2010. (Doc. 9.)

On August 3, 2010, Defendant EMC Mortgage Corp. removed this case from

Pima County Superior Court alleging federal question jurisdiction. 

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Velasco for all pretrial matters

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2 Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the

District Court of Arizona. 

For reasons which follow, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District

Court DENY Defendant's Motion for Remand. 

//

//

//

//

Case 4:10-cv-00468-JGZ Document 16 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2006, Zandonatti borrowed $271,900.00 from the Defendants

PRO30 FUNDING and Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) to

purchase a certain property in Tucson, Arizona. (Notice of Removal, Complaint)

Zandonatti assumed an adjustable rate mortgage with an interest rate initially set at

8.00%, rising to 11.00% after 5 years with adjustments every six months after that to

a high of 13.00%. Id. The loan also contained an interest only provision for the first

10 years. 

On July 15, 2010, Zandonatti filed in Pima County Superior Court a complaint

seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants for alleged

wrongdoing with regard to the Plaintiff’s mortgage loan under the following theories:

Violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq. and Regulation Z

(“TILA”); Violations of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601,

et. seq. (“RESPA”); and a variety of state law claims, including fraud, breach of

fiduciary duty, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and quiet title. Id. 

On August 3, 2010, Defendant EMC Mortgage Corp. (“EMC”) filed a notice of

removal in this court alleging federal question jurisdiction. EMC asserted in its notice

that counsel for the Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. (“QLS”) was contacted was

contacted and confirmed that it consented to the removal. (Notice of Removal.) EMC

asserted that the docketed did not indicate that Defendant MERS had been served, and

that Defendants PRO30 Funding and Red House Lending, Inc., upon information and

belief, no longer exist. Id. 

In its Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, EMC stated it was served on July 22,

2010, but no other party had been served at the time of removal. (Notice of Removal,

attachments.)

On September 7, 2010, Zandonatti filed the instant motion to remand. She

moves that the Court remand the action to State court because the federal claims are

Case 4:10-cv-00468-JGZ Document 16 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

merely “collateral” and not “basic” and “necessary” to the complaint and because all

Defendants did not join in the notice of removal. (Doc. 9.)

On September 8, 2010, EMC filed a response to Zandonatti’s motio nto remand.

(Doc. 10.) Zandonatti filed a reply on October 4, 2010. (Doc. 13.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

In general, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts

of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the

defendants . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The defendant has the burden of proving

removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). In this case, EMC

argues removal is proper because this court has federal question jurisdiction. (Notice

of Removal.)

“As a general rule, the presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is

governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule’ which provides that federal jurisdiction

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

pleaded complaint.” Arco Environmental Remediation v. Department of Health and

Environmental Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

“As the master of the complaint, a plaintiff may defeat removal by choosing not to

plead independent federal claims.” Id. at 1114. 

In this case, Zandonatti chose to include in her complaint two federal statutory

claims: a claim pursuant to the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., and

a claim pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et

seq. The court therefore has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331.

Zandonatti argues that a party who brings suit is a “master of the claim and may

decide to rely exclusively on state law to avoid federal jurisdiction, citing Caterpillar,

Inc. v. William, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff, however, chose to allege two

Case 4:10-cv-00468-JGZ Document 16 Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 5
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 - 4 -

claims based on federal statutes and regulations. The federal claims are alleged plainly

and distinctly, and are not merely collateral to the state law claims. As long as her

complaint contains at least one federal cause of action, this court has original

jurisdiction and removal is proper. See Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524

U.S. 381, 386 (1998) (“We have suggested that the presence of even one claim ‘arising

under’ federal law is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the case be within the

original jurisdiction of the district court for removal.”).

B. Unanimity

Zandonatti further argues the EMC alleged, without evidence of authority, that

all defendants “joined” in the removal. 

The procedure for removal is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The notice of

removal must be filed “within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through

service or otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading” or “within thirty days after the

service of summons upon the defendant” in those jurisdictions that require the plaintiff

to file the complaint with the court but do not require the plaintiff to serve a copy of the

complaint on each defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). In a multi-defendant case, removal

is permitted only if the defendants are unanimous in their request for removal. Hewitt

v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir.1986). This is the so-called unanimity

rule. For the purposes of the unanimity rule, those defendants who have not been

properly served at the time the notice is filed may be ignored. Emrich v. Touche Ross

& Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988).

In this case, when the notice of removal was filed, only EMC had been properly

served. Accordingly, only EMC needed to sign the notice of removal. The fact that the

unserved defendants did not join in the notice of removal does not require remand. 

//

//

//

Case 4:10-cv-00468-JGZ Document 16 Filed 12/15/10 Page 4 of 5
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 - 5 -

III. RECOMMENDATION

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the district court, after its independent review

of the record, enter an order DENYING the motion to remand filed by the plaintiff,

Christina Zandonatti, on September 7, 2010. (Doc. 9) 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections

within 14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If

objections are not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all

parties. 

DATED this 15th day of December, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00468-JGZ Document 16 Filed 12/15/10 Page 5 of 5