Beasley v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

1 WO — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — James C raig Beasley, ) No. CV-24-03708-PHX-SPL ) — 9 — ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) — 11 — ) JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, et al., ) — 12 — ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 ) 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court. (Doc. 27). For the 16 following reasons, the Motion is granted. 17 Plaintiff James Craig Beasley, an Arizona resident, initiated this action seeking 18 damages for negligence, negligence per se, and premises liability in Maricopa County 19 Superior Court. (Doc. 1-1). Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank NA removed this case to 20 federal court on December 24, 2024 based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). On March 21 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, in which he added Defendant 22 Valley National Bank of Arizona to this action. (Doc. 23 at 2). Plaintiff now moves to 23 remand this action to the Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 27). 24 Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if subject matter 25 jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 , 1116 26 (9th Cir. 2004). The removing party bears the burden of establishing subject matter 27 jurisdiction as a basis for removal by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1117 ; Emrich 28 v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). To satisfy this burden under 1] 28U.S.C. § 1441, the removing party must demonstrate that jurisdiction existed at the time 2| of removal. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). For diversity cases, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). Whereas the Constitution contemplates minimal diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires 5 | complete diversity—no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Cady 6| v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1130 (D. Ariz. 2011). There is a “strong 7 | presumption against removal jurisdiction,” which “must be rejected if there is any doubt as 8 | to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). 10 Plaintiff argues that this case must be remanded state court because complete 11 | diversity does not exist between the parties to this litigation. (Doc. 27 at 2). Specifically, 12| the Plaintiff argues that the addition of Defendant Valley National Bank of Arizona 13 | eliminates complete diversity of citizenship. (/d.). Defendant Valley National Bank of 14| Arizona is an Arizona corporation (Doc. 23 at 2), and thus, is a citizen of Arizona under 28 15| U.S.C. 1332(c)(1). As such, there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the 16 | parties, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Pursuant to 28 17| U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court must remand this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) (‘If at any 18 | time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 19 | the case shall be remanded.”). Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 27) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to 22 | the Maricopa County Superior Court and terminate this case. 93 Dated this 27th day of May, 2025. — 24 — — 25 — 26 GF — 27 — — 28 —