Dalton v. Diverified Adjustments/Sprint

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 14, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-08096
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 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

11 v.

12 Diverified Adjustments/Sprint,

13 Defendant. 14 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 17 LRCiv 7.2. 18 This action was removed from Mohave County Justice Court because Defendant 19 thinks Plaintiff might have alleged a federal claim, a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting 20 Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Doc. 1). Now Defendant seeks a more definite 21 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 23 FCRA or any other federal cause of action. (Doc. 1-3 at 2). It may well be that Plaintiff 24 only wanted to bring state law claims, such as a claim under Arizona’s Consumer Reporting 25 Agency Act. See A.R.S. § 44-1691 et seq. This case, then, was not removed because 26 Plaintiff clearly invoked a federal cause of action. It was removed because of Defendant’s 27 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 5 || lacks jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Court will remand this case 6 || 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 11 || action to the Mohave County Justice Court. 12 Dated this 10th day of June, 2021. 13 14 oC. . fo □□ 15 norable'Diang/4. Hunfetewa 16 United States District Fudge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-