Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02494/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02494-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
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

1

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1444, foreclosure actions filed against the United States may be

removed to federal court.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alterra Property Owners Association, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ramsey D. Gordon; Beverly G. Gordon;

CACH LLC; Agua Caliente Investments

III LLC; Manatee Investments III LLC;

CIT Small Business Lending Corp.;

Unknown heirs and devisees of each of the

named defendants, if deceased, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-02494-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion to remand to state court (doc. 21). Plaintiff

originally filed this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County concerning

foreclosure of its lien on a piece of property in Scottsdale, Arizona owned by defendants

Ramsey and Beverly Gordon. Plaintiff seeks to have its lien judged superior to the interests

of the defendant entities. The United States of America, Department of Treasury, originally

named as a defendant, removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1444.1

 We

dismissed the United States of America, Department of Treasury from this action pursuant

to stipulation (doc. 20). None of the remaining defendants have appeared.

Case 2:11-cv-02494-FJM Document 22 Filed 03/14/12 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 -

Plaintiff moves for remand, arguing that only state law claims remain now that the

United States has been dismissed from this action. Because we have dismissed the claim

which gave rise to federal question jurisdiction, we may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In the ordinary case where all

federal claims are dismissed, "the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent

jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point

toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Sanford v.

MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619 n.7 (1988)). This action is in the very

early stages. None of the remaining defendants have appeared. On balance, all factors point

towards declining to adjudicate plaintiffs' state law claims. The best place to resolve state

law claims is state court.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion to remand to state court (doc. 21).

IT IS ORDERED VACATING the Rule 16 scheduling conference set for March 23, 2012.

The Clerk shall remand this action to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. 

DATED this 14th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02494-FJM Document 22 Filed 03/14/12 Page 2 of 2