Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01100/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01100-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 

Cottonflower Goodyear Community 

Association, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Malik Bey, et al., 

Defendant.

No. CV15-01100-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Malik Bey, also apparently known as Walter Edward King, removed 

this case from Maricopa County Superior Court. Doc. 1. The Court will remand the case 

for lack of diversity jurisdiction. 

I. Background. 

 Defendant, who claims to be a “non resident alien and foreign sovereign on the 

land of this Republic by birthright and heritage” (Doc. 1 at 4), asserts that he is the owner 

of the various entities named as Defendants in this case. He asserts that this case was 

filed in Maricopa County Superior Court in 2013, a default judgment was wrongly 

entered in 2014, and the Maricopa County Sheriff is about to sell his property. Id. at 2-4. 

He filed a notice of removal and seeks immediate injunctive relief. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), district courts have removal jurisdiction over any 

claim that originally could have been brought in federal court. Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, 

Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 686-87 (9th Cir. 2007). The removal statute is strictly construed 

Case 2:15-cv-01100-DGC Document 4 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

against removal jurisdiction. Id. (citing Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 

1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and 

federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 

first instance. Id. 

III. Discussion. 

 Defendant removed this case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 

1 at 4. In order to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must show that 

Defendants and Plaintiff are not residents of the same state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 Defendant alleges that he is a foreign sovereign, but notes in the address block of 

his filing that he resides “In care of [2267 south 173rd Drive]” in “Maricopa county 

Arizona Republic near [Goodyear] zip exempt.” Doc. 1 at 1. This address – 2267 south 

173rd Drive, Goodyear, Arizona – is the same street address as the property at issue in 

the underlying lawsuit. Doc. 1-1 at 2. 

 Defendant thus resides in Arizona, and Plaintiff is an Arizona non-profit 

corporation. Doc. 1-1 at 1. Because Defendant and Plaintiff are both Arizona residents, 

the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction, removal was improper, and this case will be 

remanded to Maricopa County Superior Court. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall remand this action to Maricopa County 

Superior Court. 

 Dated this 18th day of June, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01100-DGC Document 4 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 2