Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00441-1/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, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Colorado Savings Banks; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-441-TUC-RCC

ORDER

On October 13, 2010, the Honorable Glenda E. Edmonds, United States Magistrate

Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (Recommendation). (Doc. 18). Magistrate

Edmunds recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand to State Court

(Doc. 9), because this Court does have federal question jurisdiction and the notice of removal

does not violate the unanimity rule.

Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation on October 29, 2010. (Doc. 19).

Plaintiff argues that the Defendants were not unanimous in their request for removal,

because all Defendants were served at the time of the Notice of Removal and the avowal of

consent contained in the Notice is defective. Plaintiff also attached affidavits of service for

Colorado Federal Savings Bank and Quality Loan Service Corp. (Doc. 19 Ex. 1). 

Whether or not all Defendants were served prior to the Notice of Removal is

immaterial, since all Defendants consented to removal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 20 Filed 11/16/10 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 -

addressed the issue of a the form of a co-defendant’s consent to removal in Proctor v. Vishay

Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court adopted the reasoning of the

Sixth Circuit, holding that “[o]ne defendant’s timely removal notice containing an averment

of the other defendant’s consent and signed by an attorney of record is sufficient.” Id. at

1225. Defendant EMC avowed in its Notice of Removal that “[u]undersigned counsel’s staff

has spoken to counsel for Colorado Federal and QLS, and confirmed that they consent to the

removal,” and counsel of record for EMC signed the document. (Doc. 1). Therefore, all

Defendants joined in the removal, and the rule of unanimity was not violated. 

The Court considers the Recommendation (Docket No.19) to be thorough and wellreasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the record, the Court will adopt the

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edmunds as to the issue of federal question

jurisdiction. As to the issue of unanimity, the Court, based on the discussion contained in

this order, will adopt the Recommendation’s finding of unanimity. The Court will not adopt

the reasoning in the Recommendation as to the issue of unanimity. This is not because the

it is flawed, but because the additional evidence provided by Plaintiff requires the Court to

examine the issue anew. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Edmunds’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 19), subject to the conditions outlined above. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 9) is denied.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00441-RCC Document 20 Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 2