Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00885/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00885-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

Maria Molina, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, National Association,

etc.; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-885-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This action arises on the parties’ Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants to

File Responsive Pleading, requesting an extension of time for Defendants to file a response

to Plaintiff’s Complaint until June 2, 2014. (Doc. 5) The parties seek additional time before

Defendant files an answer or other responsive pleading because they “[a]re actively working

on settlement and hope to resolve this matter without further litigation.” (Id. at 1-2)

I. Background

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiff Maria E. Molina, a Pima County resident, filed this action

in the Maricopa County Superior Court, State of Arizona, and Defendants removed it to the

Case 2:14-cv-00885-ROS Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Phoenix division of this District Court on April 25, 2014. (Doc. 1) Subject matter jurisdiction

is predicated upon both a federal question and complete diversity of citizenship between the

parties and the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. The Complaint purports to allege causes of action

for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1206, Fraudulent

Concealment, Negligent Non-Disclosure, Negligence, Conversion, and Consumer Fraud

related to Plaintiff’s either current or former residential real property located in Tucson,

Arizona. (Doc. 1-1 at 8-17) The Complaint confirms Plaintiff resides in Pima County and

Defendants acknowledge they are not citizens of Arizona. (Docs. 1-1, ¶ 4 at 9; 1, ¶ 5 at 2)

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs for, inter

alia, the alleged lost opportunity to obtain a residential loan modification on a $215,000.00

loan via the Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”), and the alleged lost

opportunity to obtain a $97,542.00 principal reduction from the Save Our Home Program.

(Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 11, 16, 18) 

II. Venue

Federal civil actions may be brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant

resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” or “a

judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28

U.S.C. § 1391. The District of Arizona is divided into three divisions: the Phoenix division,

the Prescott division, and the Tucson division. See civil Rule of Practice for the District

Court of Arizona (“Local Rule” or “LRCiv”) 77.1(a); U.S. v. $93,110.00 in U.S. Currency,

Case 2:14-cv-00885-ROS Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

2008 WL 4183074, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2008). Pima County falls within the Tucson

division. LRCiv. 77.1(a). Regarding the location of trials, however, LRCiv 77.1(c) mandates

that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court, all civil and criminal cases founded on causes

of action (1) arising in Phoenix shall be tried in Phoenix, (2) arising in the Prescott division

shall be tried in Prescott, and (3) arising in the Tucson division shall be tried in Tucson.”

LRCiv. 77.1(c) (emphasis added); see also Konarski v. Rankin, 2013 WL 4507761, at *1 (D.

Ariz. Aug. 22, 2013). As the residential real property at issue in this lawsuit and any deed of

trust securing any loan on the residence are located and recorded in Pima County, this action

arises in the Tucson division and should be transferred to the Tucson division for all further

proceedings. This action, however, will not be transferred to the Tucson division of the

District Court of Arizona until after Defendants respond to the Complaint and briefing is

submitted on the issue.

III. Discussion

Because the law favors the voluntary settlement of civil suits, Curtis v. Century Sur.

Co., 2007 WL 3307011, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2007) (citing ABKCO Music, Inc. v.

Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F.2d 988, 997 (2d Cir. 1983), and Rule 1, Fed.R.Civ.P., requires

the civil procedural rules “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and

inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding[,]” the Court will grant a one-time

extension until June 2, 2014, before Defendants are required to file a responsive pleading and

briefing is ordered on the filing in the wrong division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district

court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall

dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in

Case 2:14-cv-00885-ROS Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

which it could have been brought.”).

Pursuant to stipulation and in the exercise of the Court’s wide discretion to manage

its cases,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants

to File Responsive Pleading, doc. 5, is GRANTED and hereby extending the time that

Defendants must answer or otherwise plead in response to the Complaint in this action to,

and including, Monday, June 2, 2014. Counsel are reminded that motions to dismiss

pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) must contain a certification of conferral, indicating that

the parties have conferred to determine whether an amendment could cure a deficient

pleading, and have been unable to agree that the pleading is curable by a permissible

amendment.

Dated this 5th day of May, 2014.

Case 2:14-cv-00885-ROS Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 4 of 4