Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State Bar of Arizona v. Levitt

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 15, 2018

State Bar of Arizona, Plaintiff,
v.
Greg Shannon Levitt, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER REMANDING CASE

          HONORABLE JAMES A. SOTO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On April 4, 2018, Defendant Greg Shannon Levitt (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal (Doc 1) in the District of Arizona. Defendant also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) and a Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Copy of the Court Record (Doc. 6). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 7). On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. 7). Defendant filed a response (Doc. 8) and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. 9). The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application (Doc. 2), only to the extent he is not required to pay the filing fee to proceed in this case, [1] and shall remand the Complaint. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) shall be granted and this matter shall be remanded. The Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Copy of the Court Record (Doc. 6) shall be denied as MOOT.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

         On May 31, 2005, the State Bar of Arizona brought this action in state court.[2] This action did not arise under federal law, but instead alleged that Defendant was practicing law without authorization in violation of Arizona Supreme Court Rules. Id. On November 17, 2005, the state court filed a Cease and Desist Order and Judgment.[3] On April 13, 2016, a Final Judgment and Order against Defendants was filed, which rejected Defendant's claims of constitutional protections. (Doc. 7 at 4:1-3.) More recently, Plaintiff has petitioned the state court for an order to show cause, alleging that Defendant persists in his unauthorized practice of the law.[4]

         JURISDICTION

         Timeliness

         “The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

         Defendant did not timely file the notice of removal. The original complaint was filed in state court on May 31, 2005.[5] Pima County Superior Court filed the original cease and desist order on November 17, 2005.[6] Plaintiff filed the most recent petition for order to show cause on February 15, 2018. (Doc. 7.) The notice of removal was filed on April 4, 2018, well past the 30 day requirement. (Doc. 1.)

         Defendant asserts that removal was timely due to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(g), which states that “Where the civil action or criminal prosecution that is removable under section 1442(a) is a proceeding in which a judicial order for testimony or documents is sought or issued or sought to be enforced, the 30-day requirement of subsection (b) of this section and paragraph (1) of section 1455(b) is satisfied if the person or entity desiring to remove the proceeding files the notice of removal not later than 30 days after receiving, through service, notice of any such proceeding.” Defendant is incorrect to rely on this subsection. This action is not removable under section 1442(a).

         Section 1442 provides that a civil action “that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them . . .: (1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue. (2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States. (3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties; (4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a).

         In this matter, Defendant appears to have been acting as an individual with no relation to the Federal Government. This suit relates to his actions as a citizen. Therefore removal under section 1442 is inappropriate. This matter shall be remanded for failure to timely file the notice of removal.

         Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute . . . .” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The party asserting jurisdiction in a United States District Court has the burden of demonstrating jurisdiction. Id. “The court accepts factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2007)). Should the party asserting jurisdiction fail to do so, the court will presume it lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Id.

         Removal is available through several different statutes. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444. The general rule is that a defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.