Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01515/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01515-0/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

 

 On May 22, 2014, Plaintiffs Alvin Mayhew and Mark Mayhew filed a complaint 

in the Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2014-93702, against Defendants 

State of Arizona, Patricia Wenzel and Spouse, and Casey Melsek and Spouse. (Doc. 1-2.) 

On July 7, 2014, Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court, 

District of Arizona, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331, commencing the instant 

action. (Doc. 1.) 

 On July 9, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) and Plaintiffs filed 

a Motion to Remand (Doc. 4). Defendants have filed a Response to the Motion to 

Remand (Doc. 5), to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 6). For the reasons that follow, 

this case will be remanded to state court, and Defendants’ motion will be denied as moot. 

I. Legal Standard 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction 

only over those matters specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The federal court’s 

Alvin Mayhew and Mark Mayhew, 

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-14-01515-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01515-SPL Document 7 Filed 07/11/14 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 

original jurisdiction can be established where the case involves diversity of citizenship, 

28 U.S.C. § 1332, or the case involves a federal question, in that it involves a question 

“arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

A state court action may be removed by a defendant or defendants if it could have 

originally been brought in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “If the district court at 

any time determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the 

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. 

Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447). 

 There is a strong presumption against removal, and the removing defendant bears 

the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 

F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); 

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “[N]otice of 

removability under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners of 

the applicable pleadings.” Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th 

Cir. 2005). “In determining the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction, [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, 375 F.3d at 838 (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction 

Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11, n. 9 (1983) (“The wellpleaded complaint rule applies to the original jurisdiction of the district courts as well as 

to their removal jurisdiction.”). 

II. Analysis 

 Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint is not one which could have originally been brought in 

federal court as required for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Despite Defendants’ 

construction that Plaintiffs’ claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Plaintiffs explicitly 

aver, the complaint alleges only state-law claims and they do not allege a federal question 

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(b). Plaintiffs submit: 

Case 2:14-cv-01515-SPL Document 7 Filed 07/11/14 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 

Count One of the Complaint is the state tort of intentional 

infliction of emotional distress. Count two is the state tort 

claim for malicious prosecution. There is no count three. 

Count Four is the state tort for negligent hiring, retention or supervision. Count Five is the state tort for intentional 

interference with parental custody of a child. Count Six is negligence and duplicate Count Six is the state tort of 

defamation and libel. Count Seven is the state tort of False 

Light Invasion of Privacy. There is not one count asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal jurisdiction claim. 

(Doc. 4 at 2.) Consequently, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish this 

Court has jurisdiction over this action. 

 In response, Defendants complain that because the complaint implicitly raises 

federal claims, “[i]f Plaintiffs did not intend to allege that the States employees violated 

their rights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or that they 

are withdrawing such claims,” this Court should make such a finding on the record. (Doc. 

5 at 2.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have offered an unambiguous recitation of their 

state-law claims, and have not requested an award of costs or attorneys’ fees incurred. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (attorneys’ fees may be awarded if the “removing party lacked an objectively 

reasonable basis for seeking removal”). Thus, nothing suggests that additional findings 

are warranted. 

 The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331, 1441. The Court will therefore order that this case be remanded to the Maricopa 

County Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) is granted; 

2. That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) is denied as moot; and 

... 

... 

... 

... 

Case 2:14-cv-01515-SPL Document 7 Filed 07/11/14 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 

3. That the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to the Maricopa County 

Superior Court. 

 Dated this 11th day of July, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01515-SPL Document 7 Filed 07/11/14 Page 4 of 4