Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08079/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08079-0/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

James E. Holland, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dwight Grandy, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-8079-PCT-FJM

ORDER

Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (doc. 4),

plaintiff’s response (doc. 8), and defendants’ reply (doc. 9). We also have before us

plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. 7), defendants’ response (doc. 10), and plaintiff’s reply

(doc. 13). 

This action was filed in state court as a tax lien foreclosure of property located in

Navajo County, Arizona (the “Property”). Plaintiff purchased Certificates of Purchase and

subsequently filed this action to foreclose any right of redemption as to the Property pursuant

to A.R.S. § 42-18201. Defendants removed the action, asserting that a federal question is

presented because, on February 2, 1848, the Property was transferred to the United States by

the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and is therefore forever exempt from state jurisdiction and

taxation.

“Federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of

Case 3:11-cv-08079-FJM Document 14 Filed 07/12/11 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 -

a properly pleaded complaint.” U.S. v. City of Arcata, 629 F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).

A federal law defense to a state law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court.

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 2848

(1983). Here, defendants spurious defenses related to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo do

not present a federal question to support federal question jurisdiction.

Defendants also claim diversity jurisdiction, although there is no evidence that the

amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. See 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a). Indeed, plaintiff submits evidence showing that the assessed value of the property

in question is only $21,133. Plaintiff’s Motion, ex. 1. We conclude that there is no

reasonable basis upon which to remove this action, and therefore grant plaintiff’s motion to

remand (doc. 7).

Plaintiff is entitled to his just costs and actual expenses, including attorney’s fees,

incurred as a result of the improper removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff’s counsel asserts

that he expended 16.8 hours related to the removal, at a rate of $195.00 per hour. We find

the number of hours and rate to be reasonable and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), we

award plaintiff $3,276 in attorney’s fees and costs.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. 7) and ordering

that defendants shall pay plaintiff $3,276 in attorney’s fees and costs. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot (doc. 4). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED REMANDING this case to the Superior Court of

Arizona in Navajo County.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08079-FJM Document 14 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 2