Opinion
CV-24-08122-PHX-SPL
07-31-2024
Auctions 4 Action LLC, Plaintiff, v. Craig Eugene Ramsell, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff Auctions 4 Action LLC filed an eviction action against Defendants Craig Eugene Ramsell and Monnie Ramsell in an Arizona state court. (Doc. 11 at 8-9). On June 20, 2024, Defendants, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal alleging that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case. (Doc. 1). On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Expedited Motion to Remand arguing that there is no federal jurisdiction. (Doc. 11). For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion will be granted.
Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if subject-matter jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The removing party bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction as a basis for removal. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). To satisfy this burden under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the removing party must demonstrate that either diversity or federal question jurisdiction existed at the time of removal. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). Diversity jurisdiction exists when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the case is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “The federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.” Castaneda v. United States, No. CV-18-02809-PHX-ESW, 2019 WL 2076036, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2019); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, (1987) (“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by 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.”). There is a “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction,” which “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
Here, upon review, the Court finds that this case is not removable under diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction fails because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. (Doc. 1-1 at 8-9). Regardless, however, a civil action may not be removed to federal court if any of the defendants is a resident of the forum state. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action in brought.”). Because Defendants reside in Sedona, Arizona, they are clearly forum defendants and may not remove this state-court action. There is also no federal question jurisdiction because there is no federal question on the face of the Complaint as Plaintiff's claim rely solely on state law. (Doc. 1-1 at 8-9).
However, Defendants assert that they did not remove this case based on diversity or federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 18 at 1-2). Instead, Defendants argue that removal is only proper under section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. (Id.). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is now recodified at 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See generally State of Ga. v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966) (describing evolution of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 from Civil Rights Act of 1866). Under § 1443, a defendant may remove an action from state court only if he is able to demonstrate that: (1) as a defense to a civil action or prosecution, he asserted rights given to him by an explicit statutory enactment protecting his civil rights; and (2) that the state court upheld a statute or constitutional provision that ordered the state court not to enforce those federally protected civil rights. 28 U.S.C. § 1443; see California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). Defendants fail to show that they asserted any rights in the state court that were given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting their civil rights. Also, Defendants fail to identify any Arizona statute precluding them from asserting any of their federal civil rights that the state court has refused to enforce. Indeed, Defendants do not even base their removal on the current text of § 1443(1), but instead rely on the original text of the Civil Rights Act.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Remand (Doc. 11) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to the Yavapai County Superior Court and terminate this case.