Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Zandonatti, a single person, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Colorado Federal Savings Bank, original

lender; EMC Mortgage Corporation,

attorney in fact for beneficiary; Red

House Lending Incorporated, mortgage

broker; et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-441-TUC-RCC (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion to remand filed by the plaintiff, David

Zandonatti, on August 8, 2010. (Doc. 9) 

On July 23, 2010, the defendant, Colorado Federal Savings Bank, removed this case

from Pima County Superior Court alleging federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff, David

Zandonatti, moves that this court remand the action to State court because federal claims are

not central to the case and because all defendants did not join in the notice of removal.

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Edmonds for all pretrial matters

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona.

 The motion should be denied. The court has federal question jurisdiction, and the

notice of removal does not violate the unanimity rule. 

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 18 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 10, 2006, Zandonatti borrowed $211,900.00 from the defendant, Colorado

Federal Savings Bank, to purchase a certain property in Sahuarita, Arizona. (Notice of

Removal, Complaint.) Zandonatti assumed a so-called subprime mortgage with an

adjustable interest rate initially set at 8.125 percent, rising to 10.75 percent after five years,

and eventually reaching a high of 13.125 percent. Id. The loan also contained an interestonly provision for the first 10 years. Id.

On June 30, 2010, Zandonatti filed in Pima County Superior Court a complaint

alleging the defendants conspired to qualify him for a loan that he could not afford. Id. His

compliant lists twelve causes of action: (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Contractual Breach of

Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Violations of TILA (15 U.S.C. § 1601, et.seq.), (4)

Violations of RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), (5) Rescission, (6) Fraud, (7) Unfair and

Deceptive Acts and Practices, (8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (9) Unconscionability, (10)

Predatory Lending, (11) Injunctive Relief, and (12) Quiet Title. Id. 

On July 23, 2010, the defendant, EMC Mortgage Corporation, filed a notice of

removal in this court alleging federal question jurisdiction. EMC asserted in its notice that

counsel for the defendants, Colorado Federal Savings Bank and Quality Loan Service Corp.,

were contacted and they consented to the removal. (Notice of Removal.) According to

EMC, the defendant, Red House Lending, Inc., no longer exists. Id.

In its Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, EMC stated it was served on July 6, 2010, but

no other party had been served at the time of removal. (Notice of Removal, attachments.)

On August 23, 2010, Zandonatti filed the instant motion to remand. He moves that

the court remand the action to State court because federal claims are not central to the case

and because all defendants did not join in the notice of removal. 

On September 7, 2010, EMC filed a response to Zandonatti’s motion to remand.

Zandonatti filed a reply on October 4, 2010.

Discussion: Federal Question Jurisdiction

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 18 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

In general, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants

. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The defendant has the burden of proving removal is proper.

Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). In this case, EMC argues removal is proper

because this court has federal question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal.)

“As a general rule, the presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed

by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint.” Arco Environmental Remediation v. Department of Health and Environmental

Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “As the master of the

complaint, a plaintiff may defeat removal by choosing not to plead independent federal

claims.” Id. at 1114. 

In this case, Zandonatti chose to include in his complaint two federal statutory claims:

a claim pursuant to the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., and a claim

pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. The court

therefore has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Zandonatti argues the federal claims are not central to the action and his state law

claims predominate. Unfortunately, that does not matter. As long as his complaint contains

at least one federal cause of action, this court has original jurisdiction and removal is proper.

See Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 386, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 2051

(1998) (“We have suggested that the presence of even one claim ‘arising under’ federal law

is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the case be within the original jurisdiction of the

district court for removal.”).

Discussion: Unanimity

Zandonatti further argues the notice of removal violates the principle of unanimity

because the notice of removal was signed only by EMC. The court does not agree.

The procedure for removal is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The notice of removal

must be filed “within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 18 Filed 10/13/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading” or “within thirty days after the service of

summons upon the defendant” in those jurisdictions that require the plaintiff to file the

complaint with the court but do not require the plaintiff to serve a copy of the complaint on

each defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). In a multi-defendant case, removal is permitted only

if the defendants are unanimous in their request for removal. Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798

F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir.1986). This is the so-called unanimity rule. For the purposes of the

unanimity rule, those defendants who have not been properly served at the time the notice

is filed may be ignored. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir.

1988).

In this case, when the notice of removal was filed, only EMC had been properly

served. Accordingly, only EMC needed to sign the notice of removal. The fact that the

unserved defendants did not join in the notice of removal does not require remand. 

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the district court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

DENYING the motion to remand filed by the plaintiff, David Zandonatti, on August

8, 2010. (Doc. 9) 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all parties.

DATED this 13th day of October, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 18 Filed 10/13/10 Page 4 of 4