Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08081/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08081-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

Sebastian W. Craynon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CitiMortgage Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV 11-8081-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are (1) Defendant’s Motion to Remand to State Court 

(Doc. 16), (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), (3) 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 19), (4) Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition (Doc. 21), and (5) Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 22). The 

Court now rules on the Motions. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 18, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. filed a forcible detainer action against 

Harvey Holder and John Doe Occupant in Mohave County Superior Court. Plaintiff is 

the occupant of the property that is the subject of that State Court action (the “Property”). 

On May 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Change of Venue” in Mohave County 

Superior Court. On May 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court seeking quiet 

title to the Property. Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Removal and this Court did not treat 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as a removal action from the Mohave County Superior Court. The 

Mohave County Superior Court treated Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Venue and 

Complaint filed in this Court as divesting it of jurisdiction and has stayed proceedings in 

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 24 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

that Court pending a decision from this Court on Defendant’s Motion to Remand. 

Plaintiff has amended his Complaint twice in this case. Defendant now seeks remand or 

dismissal of this case. 

 Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.1

 In response to Defendant’s Motion to Remand, Plaintiff argues that Arizona 

Revised Statutes section 12-1177(A), regarding actions for forcible entry and detainer, is 

unconstitutional. However, Plaintiff did not make any such allegation in his Complaint, 

his First Amended Complaint, or his Second Amended Complaint. 

 Moreover, because Plaintiff clearly attempted to remove this action from Mohave 

County Superior Court and Mohave County Superior Court treated this as a removed 

action based on Plaintiff’s representations to it, the Court will also treat this action as 

removed from Mohave County Superior Court and will thus analyze whether remand is 

appropriate in this removed action.2

 

 

1

 Plaintiff did file a Motion for Default Judgment on November 4, 2011. However, it does not appear that Defendant has ever been served in this case and Plaintiff 

has never filed any proof that Defendant has been served. Further, on October 13, 2011, 

Defendant specially appeared in this case and requested that the Court remand the action to Mohave County Superior Court. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has never filed a proof of service and because Defendant has appeared to defend itself in this case, Plaintiff is 

not entitled to Default Judgment. 

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing,” which appears to the Court to be a request for oral argument on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

and Defendant’s Motion to Remand. However, oral argument would not aid the Court’s decisional process in deciding the motions pending before the Court. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 22) is denied. 

2

 Plaintiff cannot have an action stayed in state court based on removal and then 

attempt to assert that it is not a removal action, but that it is a new action in this Court. 

The only reason the Clerk of this Court did not treat this as a removal action is because 

Plaintiff failed to properly demonstrate that this case was being removed to this Court. Accordingly, this Court must treat this as a removed action (as Plaintiff represented to the Mohave County Superior Court and attempted to represent in his Complaint filed with this Court). It would be entirely inequitable for this Court to treat this as a new action, 

only to leave Defendant’s state court action languishing based on Plaintiff’s failure to properly file the removal paperwork with this Court. 

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 24 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

 Defendant argues that this case should be remanded because Defendant’s 

Complaint in state court solely alleged a forcible detainer action, which does not present 

a federal question and, thus, Plaintiff’s only basis for removal could be diversity. 

Defendant further argues that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction because 

Plaintiff cannot satisfy the amount in controversy requirement because actions for 

forcible detainer are actions only for the right of possession and, thus, there is no amount 

in controversy. 

 II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 A district court may exercise removal jurisdiction only if it would have original 

subject matter jurisdiction over the action as originally brought by the plaintiff. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). A case is therefore removable if either diversity or federal question 

jurisdiction exists. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). Because there is a strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction, the removing party bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper 

and any doubt or ambiguity must be resolved in favor of remand. Id.; Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, the 

case must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

 District courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of 

different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

III. ANALYSIS 

 Here, because the sole issue in a forcible detainer action is the right of possession, 

not title, there is no amount in controversy in the absence of other relief sought. Federal 

Nat’l. Mortgage Ass’n v. Sandoval, No. CV-10-0346-PHX, NVW, 2010 WL 1759353, at 

*1 (D. Ariz. April 30, 2010) (internal citation omitted); see Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-

1177(A) (“On the trial of an action of forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of 

actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into”) (emphasis added). 

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 24 Filed 05/21/12 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

Therefore, diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case. 

 Further, to the extent that Plaintiff attempts to raise a “federal defense” by arguing, 

in his Response to the Motion to Remand (although not alleged in Plaintiff’s 

“Complaint”), that Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-1177(A) is unconstitutional, 

under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Hunter, 582 

F.3d at 1042 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, federal jurisdiction cannot 

be predicated on a defense, even if that defense is anticipated and is the “only question 

truly at issue in the case.” Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s attempt to establish federal 

question jurisdiction fails and Plaintiff has not otherwise overcome the strong 

presumption against removal jurisdiction. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 16) is 

granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 

19) is denied. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition 

(Doc. 21) is denied as moot. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 

(Doc. 22) is denied. 

/// 

// 

/ 

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 24 Filed 05/21/12 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

 The Clerk of the Court shall cause a copy of this Order to be filed in Mohave 

County Superior Court Case No. S-8015-CV201100616. The Clerk of the Court shall 

close this case. 

 Dated this 21st day of May, 2012. 

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 24 Filed 05/21/12 Page 5 of 5