Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00962/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00962-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

Norman Tierney and Louann Tierney, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

First Magnus Financial Corporation, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0962-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs brought the pending action against Defendants First Magnus Financial

Corporation, Aurora Bank FSB, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Incorporated

in Maricopa County Superior Court. On May 3, 2010, Defendant Aurora removed this case

on the ground that Plaintiffs’ complaint raises federal questions and that federal jurisdiction

is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Dkt. #1. Aurora did not file the record from the state

court with this Court as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.7(b), which mandates

that the removing party “file copies of all pleadings and other documents that were

previously filed with the state court[.]” Under Rule 3.7(b), “[u]nless the removing party files

a motion requesting an extension of time for good cause, the state court record must be filed

when the notice of removal is filed.” Aurora did not request any extension of time.

Plaintiffs, on May 7, 2010, filed a motion for remand and a request for attorneys’ fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiffs contend that Aurora’s notice of removal was filed

more than 30 days after Aurora received the initial pleading in violation of

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Dkt. #7. In support of their motion for remand, Plaintiffs attached a

Case 2:10-cv-00962-DGC Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

copy of the return of service to Aurora, which is dated March 30, 2010. Dkt. #7-1 at 2.

Plaintiffs argue that, based on this date of service, Aurora could not file its notice of removal

after May 1, 2010, and that by waiting until May 3, 2010, Aurora’s notice of removal was

untimely. Dkt. #7.

Plaintiffs further argue that Aurora’s notice of removal is contrary to law, as their

complaint does not state a federal question. Because Aurora failed to file the state court

record, however, the Court cannot examine Plaintiffs’ complaint to determine whether it

states a federal claim.

Aurora has failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to remand or to Plaintiffs’ request

for attorneys’ fees as required by Local Rule 7.2(c), which states that the opposing party shall

“have fourteen (14) days” to “file a responsive memorandum” to any motion. Under Local

Rule 7.2(i), if a responsive memorandum is not timely filed, “such non-compliance may be

deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

motion summarily.”

The Court will deem Aurora’s failure to respond as consent to the granting of

Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i). The Court will remand this case to state

court. The Court will further grant Plaintiffs’ request for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred

as a result of Aurora’s removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiffs shall have until

July 16, 2010 to file memorandum in support of their request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to

Local Rule 54.2. Aurora shall have until July 30, 2010 to file a response to the

memorandum.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. #7) is granted.

2. The Clerk of Court shall remand this action.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00962-DGC Document 11 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2