Opinion
CV-22-01222-PHX-DJH
01-20-2023
Devi Cooper, Plaintiff, v. Jose Duenas, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 31). The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff's Notice of No Objection to Defendants' Motion to Remand Case to State Court (Doc. 33). The Court finds it no longer has diversity jurisdiction over the present action; accordingly, the Court remands this case to Maricopa County Superior Court.
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Thus, district courts have removal jurisdiction only over “state-court actions that could have been filed in federal court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987). There are two primary sources of federal court jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question or “arising under” jurisdiction; and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction. In order to invoke the Court's diversity jurisdiction, a removing defendant must show both that she and plaintiff are not residents of the same state, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction). “If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1-3 at 5-11) in Maricopa County Superior Court alleging two claims for negligence. Plaintiff is a resident of Arizona. (Id. at ¶ 1). On July 21, 2022, then Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (See Doc. 1 at 3-4). On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 17) joining Jose Duenas as a Defendant. The FAC alleges that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Jose Duenas because he is a resident of Arizona. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 8). Thus, Defendants' motion to remand the present matter to state court is proper because there is no longer complete diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e); Stevens v. Brink's Home Security, Inc., 378 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[O]nce the non-diverse defendants were joined remand became mandatory. . . . A district court may not allow joinder and retain jurisdiction.”). Plaintiff has no objection to the remand. (Doc. 33).
Juan Doe, husband; Jane Doe I, wife; U.S. Foods Inc., a corporation; John Does I-V; Jane Does II-V; Black Partnerships I-V; and White Corporations IV were the named Defendants at the time of removal. (See generally Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 3-5).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to REMAND this case to Maricopa County Superior Court re: CV2022-006985.