Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00666/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00666-0/pdf.json

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

Bari E. Clapick; Kuma & Cash, LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

First National Bank of Arizona; Bank of

New York Mellon; Bank of America N.A.;

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

Incorporated; ReconTrust Company N.A.;

John Does, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-00666-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us plaintiffs' motion to remand (doc. 10), plaintiff's notice of errata

(doc. 15), defendants' response (doc. 16), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 18). Plaintiffs filed this

action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County on February 21, 2012. Their

amended special action complaint asserts claims for violation of A.R.S. § 33-420, violation

of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and quiet title. Defendants The Bank of New York

Mellon Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A., and Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. removed on the basis of diversity on March 28, 2012.

Plaintiff Clapick purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona in August 2004. She

financed the purchase with a loan for $520,800 from the First National Bank of Arizona

("FNBA"). FNBA was one of three banks owned by First National Bank Holding Company.

FNBA was merged into a sister bank, First National Bank of Nevada ("FNBN"), on June 30,

Case 2:12-cv-00666-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

2008. FNBN was soon closed and its assets sold to Mutual of Omaha Bank ("MOB"), a

federal savings association. 

"[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal." Libhart v. Santa Monica

Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). When a case has been removed to federal court under 28

U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity, "the proponent of federal jurisdiction – typically the

defendant in the substantive dispute – has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that removal is proper." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.

Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). Defendants purport to base jurisdiction on

diversity of citizenship. 

Plaintiffs claim that an unserved defendant, FNBA, destroys diversity because it was

an Arizona citizen and its successor MOB is a national citizen. Defendants contend that

FNBN was a citizen of Nevada and, because it acquired FNBA before being closed and

placed into a receivership, the last state of citizenship of FNBA was Nevada. Defendants fail

to discuss the effect of MOB's acquisition of FNBN's assets. MOB, a federally chartered

savings association, was the successor to FNBA before plaintiffs filed their complaint and

apparently continues to be FNBA's successor. "In determining whether a Federal court has

diversity jurisdiction over a case in which a Federal savings association is a party, the Federal

savings association shall be considered to be a citizen only of the State in which such savings

association has its home office." 12 U.S.C. § 1461(x). Defendants have made no allegations

regarding the state of MOB's citizenship in general or home office under this statute.

In addition, one of the plaintiffs is a limited liability company ("LLC"). An LLC "is

a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens." Johnson v. Columbia

Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The parties fail to discuss the

citizenship of the members of plaintiff Kuma & Cash, LLC. Defendants have not overcome

the "strong presumption" against federal jurisdiction and have not met their burden of

proving that removal was proper.

Case 2:12-cv-00666-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to remand and remanding this

action to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County for lack of federal subject matter

jurisdiction. (Doc. 10).

DATED this 20th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00666-FJM Document 20 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 3