Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08271/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08271-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

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 

Patricia Piburn, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lynnell Levingston, et. al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08271-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 On November 13, 2013, Defendants Jonathan Patrick Alter and Lynnell 

Levingston filed a notice of removal to this Court of case number CV-2011-237 from the 

Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Apache. For the reasons set forth 

below, this case is remanded to Apache County Superior Court. As a result of this 

remand, the Applications to proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 

filed by both Alter (Doc. 2) and Levingston (Doc. 3) are moot, and are denied as such. 

 The Notice of Removal fails to establish that this Court has, or would have had, 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 1 Ex. 7 at pps. 63-69). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they have 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). A party may remove an 

Case 3:13-cv-08271-GMS Document 7 Filed 11/22/13 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 

action from state court only if the action could have been brought in the district court 

originally. Ramirez v. Fox Television Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 1993). But 

the party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof on a motion to remand to 

state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, the removal 

statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id. (citing Emrich v. Touche 

Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). There is a “strong presumption” 

against removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.

 The Notice of Removal claims that this Court has jurisdiction both under federal 

question and diversity jurisdiction. It is incorrect on both counts. In the Notice, the 

removing Defendants assert that Defendant Levingston has a defense against some or all 

of the claims that Plaintiff Piburn makes against her because the debts that are the subject 

of the Amended Complaint were discharged in a federal bankruptcy proceeding. “Since 

Piburn, in the Complaint – is seeking damages arising from the CV 2008-267 case-debts 

that have been discharged in bankruptcy; it has become a Federal matter to be addressed 

in Federal Court.” This assertion, however, is incorrect. While a discharge in a federal 

bankruptcy proceeding could constitute a defense in whole or in part to Piburn’s claims, 

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., 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 

Case 3:13-cv-08271-GMS Document 7 Filed 11/22/13 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 

jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law). 

 To the extent that the Notice of Removal purports to invoke the Court’s diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are also 

not satisfied. To invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must show both 

that none of the Defendants are residents of the same state as the Plaintiff, and that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements 

for diversity jurisdiction). In the notice of removal, the removing Defendants set forth 

that Defendant Alter is a resident of the state of California and hence not a resident of the 

same state as Defendant Piburn. The suit however, is not brought only against Alter; it is 

also brought against Levingston who is a resident of Apache County, The Levingston 

Family Trust and the M & R Irrevocable Trust which is apparently the equitable owner of 

a parcel of real estate in Apache County. Neither of the Removing Defendants in their 

statement of jurisdiction that is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446 set forth any credible basis 

on which this Court could find that it has diversity jurisdiction over the parties; this is 

especially true in light of what the voluminous litigation records, filed with the notice of 

removal, reveal concerning the history and status of this litigation in state court. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is remanded for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this action back to the 

Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Apache. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:13-cv-08271-GMS Document 7 Filed 11/22/13 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Docs. 2, 3) are denied as moot. 

 Dated this 21st day of November, 2013. 

Case 3:13-cv-08271-GMS Document 7 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 4