United States District Court, D. Arizona
February 4, 2015
U.S. Bank National Association, Plaintiff,
Kevin Main, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID K. DUNCAN, Magistrate Judge.
TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Defendant Kevin Main has removed the above-captioned matter from the Superior Court of Arizona. Defendant asserts that federal jurisdiction exists based upon the alleged federal question grounds set forth in what may be construed as Defendant's counterclaim. The Court's jurisdictional analysis, however, must be focused solely on the jurisdictional grounds asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint. Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821 (9th Cir. 1985) ("[R]emovability cannot be created by defendant pleading a counterclaim presenting a federal question"); U.S. Bank Nat. Assoc. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 2012 WL 6158609 (D. Ha. Nov. 16, 2012). This removed Complaint solely asserts a state claim for forcible entry and detainer and thus does not allege any basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.