Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00690/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Capital One Bank
Counter Defendant
Pamela Smetka
Counter Claimant
Richard Smetka
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

CAPITAL ONE BANK, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-690 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R 

)

PAMELA SMETKA, and RICHARD )

SMETKA, husband and wife, )

)

Defendants. ) )

This matter arises out of a debt collection suit originally

filed in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County by

Plaintiff Capital One Bank on March 9, 2005. Notice (doc. # 1),

Ex. 1. On April 3, 2007, Defendants Pamela Smetka and Richard

Smetka, appearing pro se, attempted to remove the action to this

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335, 1348, 1441 and 1446. 

Plaintiffs filed an objection to the notice of removal (doc. # 4),

which the Court construes as a motion to remand. Thereafter,

Defendants filed a motion to strike that objection (doc. # 5),

which the Court construes as a response to the motion to remand. 

Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion to quash a civil arrest

warrant issued by the Superior Court of Arizona (doc. # 6).

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

I. MOTION TO REMAND

Defendants’ notice of removal is untimely, and, in any event,

does not assert any valid grounds for removal. The procedures for

removal provide as follows:

The notice of removal of a civil action or

proceeding shall be filed within thirty days

after the receipt by the defendant, through

service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial

pleading setting forth the claim for relief

upon which such action or proceeding is based,

or within thirty days after the service of

summons upon the defendant if such initial

pleading has then been filed in court and is

not required to be served on the defendant,

whichever period is shorter.

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The exhibits filed by Defendants reflect that

service of the summons and complaint in this action was effected

more than two years prior to the filing of their notice of removal

in this Court. See Notice (doc. # 1), Ex. 1-2.

Their notice also fails to assert any valid basis for removal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1348. See Notice (doc. # 1). That statute only

confers original jurisdiction in certain actions involving national

banking associations, neither of which would apply in this

instance. Section 1348 provides in relevant part as follows:

The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by

the United States, or by direction of any

officer thereof, against any national banking

association, any civil action to wind up the

affairs of any such association, and any action

by a banking association established in the

district for which the court is held, under

chapter 2 of Title 12, to enjoin the

Comptroller of the Currency, or any receiver

acting under his direction, as provided by such

chapter.

28 U.S.C. § 1348. The present action was not commenced by the

United States or by direction of any of its officers. It is not a

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 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 -

suit to wind down the affairs of a national banking association. 

It is also not a suit to enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency or

any receiver acting under his direction. Rather, it is a suit

seeking collection on a debt. Defendants have not asserted, nor is

the Court aware of, any valid grounds for it to exercise

jurisdiction over such a case, and Defendants’ attempt to remove

this action is untimely in any event. Plaintiff’s motion to remand

(doc. # 4) will therefore by granted.

II. MOTION TO QUASH

According to Defendants’ motion to quash, a hearing was held

at the state court on April 25, 2007-- after their notice of

removal had been filed in this Court-- and a civil arrest warrant

has now been issued for their failure to appear at that hearing. 

See Mot. (doc. # 6). Defendants’ argue that, after the filing of

their notice of removal in this Court, the state court should not

have proceeded with that hearing or issued an arrest warrant for

their failure to appear. See Mot. (doc. # 6). On that basis, they

would have this Court quash the warrant issued by the state court.

It is not clear from the record before this Court whether

Defendants properly effected removal by filing a copy of their

notice of removal with the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

("Promptly after the filing of such notice . . . defendants . . .

shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court,

which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no

further unless and until the case is remanded."). It would appear

that the state court proceeded as it did, because Defendants did

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 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

1

 If the state court had received a copy of the notice of

removal from Defendants, then Defendants may have a legitimate basis

to obtain the relief they seek from that court. See 28 U.S.C. §

1447(d).

- 4 -

not apprise it of the removal as they should have.1 On that basis,

as well as for the reason that this case is to be remanded,

divesting this Court of jurisdiction, Defendants’ motion to quash

(doc. # 6) will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to

Defendants’ notice of removal (doc. # 4) is construed as a motion

to remand, and so construed is GRANTED. This case is remanded to

the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (doc.

# 5) is construed as a response to Plaintiff’s motion to remand,

and is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to quash (doc. #

6) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to send

the file in this case to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa

County.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2007.

Copies to counsel of record and Defendants pro se

Case 2:07-cv-00690-RCB Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 4 of 4