Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01653/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01653-0/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 

Steven E. Pauley, secured party creditor,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Federal National Mortgage Association, its 

successors and/or assigns; and Company 

Does (unknown), 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01653-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Plaintiff Steven Pauley’s Motion to Abstain and Remand to 

State Court (Doc. 13), Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“Fannie 

Mae”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10), and Fannie Mae’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 19). 

Pauley’s Motion is denied and Fannie Mae’s motions are granted. 

 Pauley filed a Motion to Abstain and Remand to State Court on October 15, 2012, 

over two months after the case was removed. At that point, the only basis available for 

remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) was lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1

 Pauley’s 

Motion contains no challenge to this court’s diversity jurisdiction to hear this case. The 

Motion to Remand is therefore denied. 

 Pauley also asks this Court to abstain from hearing the case, citing the grounds 

developed in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., Younger v. Harris, and D.C. Court of Appeals v. 

 

1

 “A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 

Case 2:12-cv-01653-GMS Document 20 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Feldman. An examination of the claims raised in the Complaint reveals that none of those 

doctrines apply. Pauley brings a case that attempts to undo a foreclosure sale, and asserts 

claims that have been decided numerous times by federal courts. Buford abstention 

applies only when outcome of federal case will prejudice public interest or state 

sovereignty, and Pauley does not establish such a threat. See Buford, 319. U.S. 315, 317-

18 (1943). Moreover, neither Younger nor Rooker-Feldman abstention applies because 

both doctrines require the existence of a state court case, and Pauley has not produced 

evidence of such a case. See Younger, 401 U.S. 37, 43-55 (1971) (no interference in ongoing state court proceedings); Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-88 (1983) (no review of state 

court judgments). He points only to the non-judicial foreclosure that has already 

occurred, but such a proceeding is by its nature non-judicial and insufficient to require 

abstention. In any event, that proceeding is complete. (Doc. 16-1, Ex. A.) The Motion to 

Abstain is denied. 

On September 10, 2012, Fannie Mae filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on 

numerous grounds, including for lack of service and failure to state a claim. The Court 

ordered Pauley to file a Response by October 31, 2012, and warned that failure to do so 

could result in dismissal. (Doc. 14.) Pauley did not file a Response, and Fannie Mae 

moved for a ruling on December 19, 2012. Local Rule 7.2(i) provides that “if . . . [a 

party] does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . , such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the 

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” Pauley’s failure to respond may be deemed 

consent to the granting of Fannie Mae’s Motion. The Court must construe pleadings filed 

by unrepresented parties generously, but “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of 

procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). Nevertheless, the Court reviewed the Complaint and 

Fannie Mae’s Motion and determines that Pauley has failed to allege facts sufficient to 

support any of the claims that he raises. All of his claims are founded on the “show me 

the note” theory that has been rejected in this District for some time. In addition, Pauley’s 

Case 2:12-cv-01653-GMS Document 20 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

failure to comply with the Order of this Court to respond to Fannie Mae’s Motion 

justifies dismissal of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. Defendant Fannie Mae’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. 

 2. Plaintiff Pauley’s Motion to Abstain and Remand to State Court (Doc. 13) 

is DENIED. 

3. Defendant Fannie Mae’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s case is dismissed and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. 

Plaintiff shall take nothing. 

Dated this 9th day of January, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01653-GMS Document 20 Filed 01/10/13 Page 3 of 3