Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01183/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01183-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Mark E. Stuart d/b/a Stuart Investments, 

Respondent.

No. CV-11-1183-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 

 On June 2, 2011, Petitioner filed in state court a petition for an order to show 

cause for Respondent’s failure to comply with an arbitration subpoena. Doc. 1-1 at 5-12. 

Because the underlying arbitration is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2011, an expedited 

hearing on the petition was held June 14, 2011. See id. at 21. The next day, before the 

hearing could be completed, Respondent removed the action to this Court asserting 

federal question jurisdiction. Doc. 1. 

 Petitioner has filed an emergency motion for remand on the ground that the Court 

is without subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 5. In response, Respondent filed a notice of 

withdrawal of his notice of removal and a notice of settlement. Doc. 8. Respondent 

states that the parties have settled this matter, including attorneys’ fees and costs, and 

have agreed to the dismissal of the state court action. 

 Respondent does not state whether he concedes that federal jurisdiction does not 

exist in this case. Regardless, “the rule [is] that the existence or non-existence of subject 

matter jurisdiction in a given case does not hinge on the representations of parties to the 

Case 2:11-cv-01183-DGC Document 9 Filed 06/17/11 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 

case.” Weese v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 07-581-GPM, 2007 WL 290814, at *3 (S.D. 

Ill. Oct. 3, 2007). A federal court “‘has an independent duty to satisfy itself that it has 

subject-matter jurisdiction.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

 The Court has federal question jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law. 

28 U.S.C. § 1331. The subpoena Petitioner seeks to enforce was issued by the arbitrator, 

not this Court. The petition seeks enforcement of the subpoena pursuant to Arizona law, 

that is, A.R.S. § 12-1507(A). In short, this case arises not under federal law, but state 

law. The Court therefore is without subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

See Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 

(1983) (federal question jurisdiction exists only where the “complaint establishes that the 

case ‘arises under’ federal law”); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821 

(9th Cir. 1985) (“The federal question ‘must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint 

unaided by the answer or petition for removal.’”) (quoting Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 

U.S. 109, 113 (1936)). The Court will grant the motion for remand (Doc. 5) and deem 

moot the notice of withdrawal (Doc. 8). See Weese, 2007 WL 290814, at *3. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Petitioner’s emergency motion for remand (Doc. 5) is granted. 

 2. The Clerk is directed to remand this matter to state court.

 Dated this 17th day of June, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01183-DGC Document 9 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 2