Arapaho LLC v. Langan

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

9 Arapaho LLC, No. CV-23-08582-PCT-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Morgan Joseph Langan, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 The present case was improperly removed, and the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over it. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte remands this case to Yavapai County Superior Court.

19 As an initial matter, Defendant Morgan Joseph Langan failed to provide this Court with a copy of the operative complaint and all other documents filed with the state court as required by LRCiv 3.6(b). That aside, Defendant has also failed to establish that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In cases removed from state court, the removing defendant has ‘always’ borne the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.”).

25 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing subject-matter jurisdiction only over those matters specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court reviews jurisdiction sua sponte because it has a duty to confirm that it can hear a case, || regardless of whether jurisdiction was raised by the parties. United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).

3 Here, Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction on the basis that his constitutional rights are in jeopardy. (Doc. 1.) But the assertion of a federal defense does || not convert a claim into one “arising under” federal law for the purposes of federal question || jurisdiction. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) CLA] claim arises under federal law ‘only when a federal question is presented on the face || of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.’”’) (quoting Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005)). Nor has Defendant provided the Court with the operative || complaint for the Court to even reach whether a federal question can be ascertained from || the face of the Plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Thus, the Court finds that it lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

13 The requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are also not 14|| satisfied. To invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, a defendant must show both that he || and the Plaintiff are not residents of the same state and that the amount in controversy 16|| exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, even where there is diversity between || the parties, a federal court may not exercise jurisdiction where the moving defendant is a 18|| resident of the forum state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Here, Defendant is a resident of 19|| Arizona, the forum state. (See Doc. 1-1 at 3.) Because he is a forum defendant, Defendant || may not remove a state-court action based on diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court REMAND this action back to || Yavapai County Superior Court.

23 Dated this 26th day of October, 2023.

25 {Z, 26 _- Ch 27 Uaited States Dicwic Judge _2-