Pacific Development Capital Incorporated v. Keefer

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

9 Pacific Development Capital Incorporated, No. CV-25-01222-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. James Keefer, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff moves to remand this action to the Arizona Justice Court, University Lakes Precinct. (Doc. 12) The deadline to file a responsive brief has passed without Defendant responding. The Motion will be granted.

18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A case originally filed in state court may be removed to a federal court only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removing party, here, Defendant James Keefer, bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1990). The removal statutes are strictly construed such that any doubts are resolved in favor of remand. Id.; see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Whenever a federal court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction in a removed case, it must remand the matter to state court. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1447.

27 Plaintiff initiated this special detainer action for unpaid rent under Arizona law in the Arizona Justice Court. See A.R.S. §§ 33-1368, 33-1377. The complaint asserts no other || claims. Thus, federal question jurisdiction does not exist. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties are not diverse under federal court diversity jurisdiction. See id. § 1332. This is confirmed 3|| by Defendant in the Notice of Removal, which states that both parties are Arizona 4|| residents. (Doc. 1) 5 The only basis for removal provided by Defendant is that “[t]here is a federal appeal || pending and the federal court has jurisdiction over this matter §§ 11 US Code 362.” □□□□ That statute provides for an automatic stay of proceedings when a debtor files for || bankruptcy protection. It does not confer federal court jurisdiction in an unrelated state || court case.

10 For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the Motion to Remand, 1] IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. The Clerk || of Court is instructed to remand this matter to the Arizona Justice Court, University Lakes 13} Precinct, and close this case.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application for Leave to Procced In Forma || Pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot.

16 Dated this 30th day of May, 2025.

Wichad T. gibuade Michael T. Liburdi 20 United States District Judge _2-