Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01119/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 

Robert M. Lane, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lucas E. Buckley, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01119-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are the fully briefed Motion to Transfer, or in the 

Alternative, Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) and Lane Defendants’ Motion to Transfer, or in 

the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). Because this Court lacks personal 

jurisdiction over all Defendants, the Motions to Transfer (Doc. 7 and Doc. 9) will be 

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The Court will transfer the case to the United 

States District Court for the District of Wyoming. 

Procedural History and Factual Background 

 Plaintiff is a citizen of Nevada (Doc. 1-1 at 5). Plaintiff filed a pro se First 

Amended Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court on May 11, 2015, alleging 

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Misrepresentation, Legal Malpractice, Conspiracy 

to Commit a Fraudulent Scheme, Rescission and Restitution, Fraudulent Transfers, and 

Breach of Contract Enforced by Third Party Beneficiary. (Doc. 1-1 at 2-27). No 

Defendant is a citizen of Arizona. (Doc. 1-1 at 5-7). By timely Notice of Removal filed 

June 17, 2015 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the case was removed to U.S. District 

Case 2:15-cv-01119-ESW Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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 

Court for the District of Arizona. (Doc. 1). All Defendants have been served. (Doc 1 

and Doc. 6). All Defendants except Defendant DFWU, LLC have filed a responsive 

pleading.1

 The District Court has original subject matter jurisdiction as Plaintiff seeks 

damages in excess of $75,000, and there is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 

1332(a)(1). However, moving Defendants request that the case be transferred to 

Wyoming because Arizona lacks personal jurisdiction over all appearing Defendants. 

 The case itself arises from a February 25, 2013 settlement reached as part of 

Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding held in the United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the District of Wyoming. The bankruptcy trustee identified two trusts and a limited 

liability corporation wholly owned by one of the trusts as property of Plaintiff’s 

bankruptcy estate. Assets of the trusts were turned over to the bankruptcy trustee 

pursuant to a settlement agreement reached, which Plaintiff references as the Turn Over 

Agreement. Plaintiff has filed his First Amended Complaint alleging that the trust assets 

should not have been turned over to the bankruptcy trustee. 

 Of significance to a determination of the pending motions is the fact that none of 

the parties are citizens of Arizona. In addition, none of the alleged settlement 

transactions giving rise to the First Amended Complaint occurred in Arizona. Nor were 

the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings held in Arizona. In fact, none of the acts or 

omissions set forth in the First Amended Complaint allegedly giving rise to the Plaintiff’s 

claims occurred in Arizona. The only reason Plaintiff has filed in Arizona appears to be 

because the two trusts which are not named parties to the action were allegedly domiciled 

in Arizona. 

Discussion 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the District Court can transfer a civil case initiated 

 

1

 Defendant DFWU, LLC is alleged to be a sham defendant or fraudulently joined. See Notice of Removal (Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff filed an Acceptance and Waiver of Service as manager for Defendant DFWU, LLC (Doc. 1-2 at 7-8), and Plaintiff states in the First 

Amended Complaint that Plaintiff is not asserting a claim against Defendant DFWU, LLC. (Doc. 1-1 at 6-7). DWFU, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation. Id.

Case 2:15-cv-01119-ESW Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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 

in one district to another if three conditions are met: (1) the transferring court lacks 

jurisdiction; (2) the receiving court could have exercised jurisdiction at the time the 

action was filed; and (3) the transfer is in the interests of justice. See Kolek v. Engen, 869 

F.2d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 The burden of proof for establishing jurisdiction lies with the Plaintiff. Cubbage 

v. Merchent, 744 F.2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1984), cert denied, 470 U.S. 1005 (1985). The 

Court finds, assuming as true all the material factual allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint and foundationally sound facts set forth by affidavit, that 

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof regarding personal jurisdiction over the 

Defendants in Arizona. 

 The Court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant in Arizona if the defendant 

is personally present in Arizona or if the defendant has “minimum contacts” with Arizona 

such that asserting jurisdiction satisfies due process and “does not offend traditional 

notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 

316-318 (1945). The Court finds as to each appearing Defendant that Plaintiff has failed 

to prove minimum contacts with Arizona. Nor are any of the Defendants physically 

present in Arizona. The actions, omissions, and transactions giving rise to the lawsuit 

allegedly occurred in Wyoming. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the Turn Over Agreement, 

which was entered into in Wyoming as part of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court proceeding and 

was approved by the Wyoming Bankruptcy Court. The Defendants never purposefully 

availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activity in Arizona such that they 

should “reasonably anticipate” being brought into court here. See Burger King v. 

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985) (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 

444 U.S. 286, 295 (1980)). Plaintiff’s causes of action do not arise out of any of the 

Defendants’ alleged Arizona related activities such that Defendants are subject to specific 

jurisdiction. See Doe v. Unocal Corp, 248 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2001). An exercise of 

specific jurisdiction by Arizona would not be reasonable. Id. Nor are any of the 

Defendants’ activities in Arizona so “substantial, continuous and systemic” that the Court 

Case 2:15-cv-01119-ESW Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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 

could conclude the Defendants are subject to general jurisdiction on matters unrelated to 

Defendants’ contacts with Arizona. See Doe v. Unocal, 248 F.3d at 923 (citing Perkins v. 

Benquet Consolidated Mining Co., 341 U.S. 437-446 (1952)). 

 The Court further finds that the Wyoming District Court could have exercised 

jurisdiction at the time the case was filed. Defendants Lucas E. Buckley; Dray, 

Dyekman, Reed & Healey, P.C.; Gregory C. Dyekman; Hathaway and Kunz, P.C.; and 

Scott Meier, CPA, are all citizens of Wyoming. None of the Defendants share citizenship 

with the Plaintiff. Defendants Colleen Lane, Matthew Lane, and Patricia Lane are 

citizens of Connecticut, Illinois, and South Carolina, respectively. Therefore, Wyoming 

has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. In 

addition, a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims 

occurred in Wyoming. Id. 

 Finally, the Court concludes that transfer, rather than dismissal, is in the interests 

of justice. The Court notes that the Plaintiff appears pro se. To dismiss the case and 

require Plaintiff to re-file could prejudice Plaintiff. Dismissal is also time-consuming, 

expensive, and causes unnecessary delay. Though Plaintiff prefers to proceed in Arizona 

for the reasons set forth in his briefing, the Court finds that the interests of justice require 

the case to proceed in Wyoming. See Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 

(1962); Cruz-Aguilera v. I.N.S., 245 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Conclusion 

IT IS ORDERED granting in part Motion to Transfer, or in the Alternative, 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7). The Motion to Transfer is granted; the alternative Motion to 

Dismiss is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part Lane Defendants’ Motion to 

Transfer, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). The Motion to Transfer is 

granted; the alternative Motion to Dismiss is denied. 

IT IS ORDERED transferring this case to the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Wyoming. 

Case 2:15-cv-01119-ESW Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 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 

 Because this Court finds that it has no jurisdiction over the Defendants, the Court 

takes no action on the following motions pending in the case: Plaintiff’s Emergency 

Motion to Approve Preliminary Injunction to Preserve Plaintiff’s Pension and IRA 

Monies (Doc. 27); Defendants’ Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 30); Lane Defendants’ Notice of Joinder in 

Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

(Doc. 33); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Colleen Lane 

and Patricia Lane to Approve Preliminary Injunction to Preserve Plaintiff’s Pension and 

IRA Monies (Doc. 32). 

 Dated this 3rd day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01119-ESW Document 37 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 5