Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01118/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01118-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Nancy Blue, c/o Current Realty Solutions,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Douglas Vore, and any and all occupants, 

Defendant.

No. CV12-1118-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Douglas Vore removed this case from Apache Junction Justice Court. 

Doc. 1. Plaintiff Nancy Blue, c/o Current Realty Solutions, has filed an expedited motion 

to remand. Docs. 3, 4. Defendant moves to quash the state court’s judgment. Doc. 5. 

The Court will grant the motion to remand and deny the motion to quash. 

I. Background. 

Plaintiff owns the subject premises at 276 W. Santa Gertrudis Trail, Queen Creek, 

AZ 85143 (“the Premises”). Plaintiff sent a written demand of surrender and possession 

to Defendant on May 16, 2012. Doc. 1, at 8. Defendant failed to vacate the Premises. 

Doc. 3, at 2. On or about May 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed the underlying eviction action in 

Apache Junction Justice Court to obtain possession of the Premises pursuant to A.R.S. 

§ 12-1173. Doc. 1, at 7. 

 Defendant failed to appear at the initial hearing scheduled for May 29, 2012, at 

which time a default judgment was entered. Doc. 3, at 2; Doc. 3-1, at 1. Defendant filed 

a notice of removal to this Court on May 25, 2012 (Doc. 1), and admits that he did not 

Case 2:12-cv-01118-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/05/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

notify the Apache Junction Justice Court of the removal until after default judgment was 

entered (Doc. 3-2). 

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 party asserting federal jurisdiction bears 

the burden of proof on a motion to remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 

Cir. 1992). The removal statute is strictly construed 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 2. In order to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must show 

that both that he and Plaintiff are not residents of the same state and that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for 

diversity jurisdiction). Defendant asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists because he is 

preparing a counterclaim against Plaintiff, which will include additional indispensable 

defendants from outside Arizona, and because the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. 

Doc. 1, at 2. Defendant may not invoke removal jurisdiction simply by asserting a 

federal defense, Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 94 F.3d 568, 570 (9th Cir. 1996), and the 

requisite diversity must exist at the time the action is removed to federal court, Miller v. 

Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, even where there is diversity 

between the parties, a federal court may not exercise jurisdiction where the moving 

defendant is a resident of the forum state. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant lists an 

Arizona address and admits that he is a resident of the state. Doc. 1, at 2. Removal under 

diversity jurisdiction is therefore improper. 

Case 2:12-cv-01118-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/05/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 petition for removal, Defendant also appears to allege due process violations 

and asks the Court to review the constitutionality of Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure 

process. Doc. 1, at 2. To determine the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction, 

however, the Court applies 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. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 

F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 

(1987)). “A defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her 

claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Rather, the federal issue “must 

be disclosed on the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for 

removal.” Gully v. First Nat’l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936). Here, the 

underlying action is brought under A.R.S. § 12-1173 to obtain possession of the 

Premises, and does not raise a federal question. Even if Defendant were to assert a 

counterclaim based on federal law, such a counterclaim would not create a federal 

question for jurisdictional purposes. Takeda v. Nw. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821-

22 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that federal question jurisdiction does not arise from the 

defenses or counterclaims alleged by a defendant).1

IV. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 

Section 1447(c) provides that a district court may require payment of just costs 

and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of an improper removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Generally, costs and fees should only be awarded when the removing party has no 

“objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 

(9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff argues that an award of attorneys’ 

fees is proper because Defendant removed the case for the sole purpose of delay and 

 

1

 Plaintiff asks the Court to validate the Apache Junction Justice Court’s default judgment, which was entered before the state court received notification of the removal. 

Doc. 3, at 5. Defendant moves to quash the default judgment for lack of jurisdiction because he filed the notice of removal before the judgment was entered. Doc. 5. Because this case is remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will take 

no action with respect to the state court judgment. 

Case 2:12-cv-01118-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/05/12 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

harassment. Doc. 3, at 6. Defendant’s notice of removal includes three ultimately flawed 

arguments for jurisdiction in this Court. Doc. 1, at 2. While the Court recognizes that 

pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, King 

v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986), the Court cannot conclude that Defendant 

necessarily knew that there was no basis for the removal and only filed the pleadings to 

delay the underlying action. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s request for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s expedited motion to remand (Docs. 3, 4) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied. 

 3. The Clerk shall remand this action to Apache Junction Justice Court. 

 Dated this 5th day of June, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01118-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/05/12 Page 4 of 4