Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01177/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01177-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Jay and Tana Boersma, husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-1177-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a forcible entry and detainer action against 

Defendants in state court. Doc. 1-1 at 3-45. Defendant Jay Boersma removed the action 

to this Court a week later. Doc. 1. 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. Doc. 7. The motion is fully briefed. 

Docs. 8, 10. No party has requested oral argument. For reasons stated below, the motion 

will be granted. 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “possess[ing] only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant “may remove an 

action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.” 

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009); see 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1332. Defendant’s notice of removal asserts both federal question and diversity 

jurisdiction. Doc. 1 at 2. 

Case 2:11-cv-01177-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 “It is to be presumed that a cause of action lies outside the limited jurisdiction of 

the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 

asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042 (citations omitted). Defendant has not 

met his burden. 

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

28 U.S.C. § 1331. It is well established that federal question jurisdiction exists only 

where the complaint itself establishes that the case arises under federal law. Franchise 

Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). 

Stated differently, “[t]he federal question ‘must be disclosed upon the face of the 

complaint unaided by the answer or petition for removal.’” Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. 

Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 

113 (1936)). 

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a forcible entry and detainer claim pursuant to A.R.S. 

§ 12-1171 et seq. Because that claim does not depend on resolution of any issue of 

federal law, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

 Federal courts possess diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . 

citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “[T]he removing defendant bears 

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 

exceeds [$75,000].” Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Defendant presents no evidence, or even an argument, that 

the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. 

 Moreover, because Defendant is “a citizen of and domiciled in the State of 

Arizona” (Doc. 1 at 2), the forum defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 141(b), prohibits removal 

on the basis of diversity jurisdition. See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 

939 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that § 1441(b) “confines removal on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state”). 

Case 2:11-cv-01177-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 Courts strictly construe the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, against removal 

jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). This strong 

presumption against removal means that the defendant always has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper, and federal jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is 

any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. Defendant has failed to 

meet his high burden. The Court therefore will remand the case to state court for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (the case shall be remanded if “at any 

time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction”). 

 Defendant’s motion for joinder (Doc. 9) will be denied as he seeks to join no 

additional party. Plaintiff argues, correctly, that Rules 18, 19, and 20 have no relevance 

to this case. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 7) is granted. 

 2. Defendant’s motion for joinder (Doc. 9) is denied. 

 3. The Clerk is directed to remand this action to state court. 

 4. Plaintiff may file a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Local Rule 54.2. 

 Dated this 18th day of July, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-01177-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/18/11 Page 3 of 3