Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02748/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02748-0/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

James Hager, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Alan G Rodbell, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-10-2748-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a complaint in Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County and 

Defendants removed due to the presence of a federal claim. Doc. 1. Plaintiff now moves 

to remand asserting absence of federal-question jurisdiction, and requests costs and 

attorney fees. Doc. 6. Defendants oppose. Doc. 11. Defendants also request attorney 

fees for opposing the remand motion (Doc. 11 at 6), but do not state a statutory or 

common law basis under which the request is made; the request will therefore be denied. 

Plaintiff has not filed a reply, but has requested a hearing on the matter (Doc. 7). 

Because the relevant issues have been briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s 

decision, the request for a hearing will be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. 

Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges five state-law causes of action. Doc. 1-1 at 12-14. 

The complaint also contains one section entitled “Violation of Civil Rights” that asserts, 

inter alia, violations of federal constitutional rights (id. at 15) and requests relief under 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (Doc. 1-1 at 15-16). Plaintiff has not withdrawn these 

Case 2:10-cv-02748-DGC Document 15 Filed 03/03/11 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 

claims, but instead argues that they are not separate causes of action and that, therefore, 

removal was improper. Doc. 6. This argument is groundless: Plaintiff has expressly 

asserted violations of federal constitutional rights on the face of the complaint and is 

requesting relief under two federal statutes.1

 Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction 

over these types of claims, e.g., Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 358 (1990), and therefore 

Defendants’ removal was proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; see e.g., Rains v. Criterion Sys., 

Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to remand will be 

denied. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 6) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing on the issue of remand (Doc. 7) is denied. 

 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2011. 

 

1

 The fact that Plaintiff chose to not label the claims as “claims” or “counts” is not 

dispositive. See Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 343 n.2 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The 

label that a plaintiff places on his pleadings, however, does not determine the nature of 

his cause of action.”). 

Case 2:10-cv-02748-DGC Document 15 Filed 03/03/11 Page 2 of 2