Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02180/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02180-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Declaratory Judgement

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Credit Suisse First Boston,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

R. Wayne Gruninger; Karen Gruninger, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2180-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to state court (doc. 7).

Defendants have not responded and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c). 

Defendants Wayne and Karen Gruninger owned property secured by a deed of trust.

On April 2, 2010, the property was sold at a trustee’s sale pursuant to the terms of the deed

of trust. U.S. Bank, as trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston, became the owner of the

property. Plaintiff filed a forcible entry and detainer action in state court, contending that

defendants continue to occupy the property although they are not the rightful owners. On

October 13, 2010, defendants filed a notice of removal, removing the matter to this court.

Plaintiff now moves to remand to state court, arguing that the forcible entry and detainer

action arises under state law and presents no federal question. Plaintiff further contends that

under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) there is no removal jurisdiction because defendants are citizens

of the forum state. Moreover, even assuming that there is complete diversity of citizenship,

this a forcible detainer action seeking only to recover possession of the property, not

Case 2:10-cv-02180-FJM Document 8 Filed 11/24/10 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 -

damages. Thus, there is no monetary amount in controversy for purposes of diversity

jurisdiction. See Curtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz. 534, 535, 925 P.2d 259, 260 (1996) (holding

that the only issue presented in a forcible detainer action is the right of actual possession).

Defendants’ failure to respond to the motion to remand may be deemed a consent to

the granting of the motion and we may dispose of the case summarily. LRCiv 7.2(i). We

agree with plaintiff that there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. 7). 

DATED this 23rd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02180-FJM Document 8 Filed 11/24/10 Page 2 of 2