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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gainey Ranch Community Association, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Rune Kraft, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-03947-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue are Defendant Rune Kraft’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5, MTD) and 

Motion for Extension (Doc. 3, Mot. for Extension). The Court finds the pending motions 

appropriate for review without responsive briefing. Accordingly, the Court denies 

Defendant’s motions and remands the matter sua sponte to Maricopa County Superior 

Court for further proceedings. 

 In the Ninth Circuit, 

[a] successive removal petition is permitted only upon a “relevant change of circumstances”—that is, “when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a 

new and different ground for removal.” Kirkbride v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 933 

F.2d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 1991). We have recognized such changes in circumstances, for example, when an intervening change of law gives rise to a new basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. See Rea v. Michaels Stores 

Inc., 742 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014); Kirkbride, 933 F.2d at 732. 

Successive petitions are also permitted when the pleadings are amended to create federal subject-matter jurisdiction for the first time. See O’Bryan v. Chandler, 496 F.2d 403, 409 (10th Cir. 1974) (collecting authorities). 

Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 781 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015). 
- 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 

 This marks Defendant’s second attempt to remove this case to the District of 

Arizona. See Notice of Removal, Gainey Ranch Cmty. Assoc. v. Kraft, No. 17-cv-02092-

MHB (D. Ariz. June 30, 2017). Following the initial notice of removal, Plaintiffs filed a 

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns 

granted on September 26, 2017, remanding the case to Maricopa County Superior Court.1

Order, Gainey Ranch Cmty. Assoc. v. Kraft, No. 17-cv-02092-MHB (D. Ariz. Sept. 26, 

2017). On October 13, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which 

Magistrate Judge Burns denied on October 20, 2017. Order, Gainey Ranch Cmty. Assoc. 

v. Kraft, No. 17-cv-02092-MHB (D. Ariz. Oct. 20, 2017). Defendant filed his second 

Notice of Removal in this Court six days later. Defendant’s petition, however, does not 

indicate that a “relevant change of circumstances” occurred “reveal[ing] a new and 

different ground for removal.” See Kirkbride, 933 F.2d at 732. Indeed, the Amended 

Complaint attached to the petition as Exhibit A is the same Amended Complaint that 

Defendant previously removed and that Magistrate Judge Burns remanded. (Doc. 1, 

Notice of Removal Ex. A.) Accordingly, the Court sua sponte remands this matter. 

IT IS ORDERED remanding this matter to Maricopa County Superior Court. 

Further attempts to remove the case without demonstrating a relevant change in 

circumstances may result in sanctions. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant’s Motion for 

Extension (Doc. 3) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5). 

 Dated this 2nd day of November, 2017. 

 

1

 “[F]ull-time federal magistrate judges ‘may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court’ and ‘[u]pon consent of the parties.’” Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 868 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C § 636(c)(1)). The record from Defendant’s prior attempt to remove indicates that all parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge