United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2021

Dalton v. Diverified Adjustments/Sprint

Dalton v. Diverified Adjustments/Sprint
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided June 14, 2021
Dalton v. Diverified Adjustments/Sprint

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Robert J Dalton, No. CV-21-08096-PCT-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Diverified Adjustments/Sprint, 13 Defendant.

15 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc.

16 7). Pro se Plaintiff has not filed any response, and the time to do so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2.

18 This action was removed from Mohave County Justice Court because Defendant thinks Plaintiff might have alleged a federal claim, a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Doc. 1). Now Defendant seeks a more definite statement, one “that would plausibly suggest [it] violated the FCRA.” (Doc. 7 at 3).

22 Upon review of the Complaint, the Court cannot find any explicit invocation of the FCRA or any other federal cause of action. (Doc. 1-3 at 2). It may well be that Plaintiff only wanted to bring state law claims, such as a claim under Arizona’s Consumer Reporting Agency Act. See A.R.S. § 44-1691 et seq. This case, then, was not removed because Plaintiff clearly invoked a federal cause of action. It was removed because of Defendant’s characterization of the ambiguous Complaint.

28 There is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and Defendant has the || burden to show removal is proper. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). By asking Plaintiff to state a federal claim that was not clearly stated before, || Defendant is, in effect, burdening Plaintiff. Defendant’s Motion also impliedly concedes it cannot show removal is proper. Because Defendant cannot carry its burden, this Court || lacks jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Court will remand this case || to Mohave County Justice Court where the parties may clarify Plaintiff's claims.

7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 7) is denied.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall kindly remand this || action to the Mohave County Justice Court.

12 Dated this 10th day of June, 2021.

14 oC. . fo □□ 15 norable'Diang/4. Hunfetewa 16 United States District Fudge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.