Zions First National Bank v. Stone Systems, Inc et al, No. 4:2011cv00459 - Document 8 (D. Idaho 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to Remand to State Court. Plaintiff Zions First National Banks motion to remand is granted but the Zions request for attorney fees is denied. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, a national banking association, Case No. 4:11-cv-000459-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. STONE SYSTEMS, INC., an Idaho corporation; CUSTOM INTERIORS UNLIMITED, INC., an Idaho corporation; TORTEL PROPERTIES, LLC, an Idaho limited liability corporation; MYLES TORTEL, individually; VENITA TORTEL, individually; Defendants. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Plaintiff Zions First National Bank s Motion to Remand (Dkt. 5). Having reviewed the record, the Court has determined that oral argument will not significantly aid the decisional process. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 BACKGROUND In 2006, Plaintiff Zions First National Bank loaned money to Defendants Stone Systems, Inc., Custom Interiors Unlimited, Inc., Tortel Properties, LLC, Myles Tortel, and Venita Tortel. Defendants defaulted on the loans, and on January 29, 2010, Zions filed a lawsuit against them in state court in Bonneville County to collect the sums Zions alleges they owed it. The complaint filed by Zions in state court stated that Zions is a national banking association located in Utah and established that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. State Ct. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6, Ex. A to Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1-2. On February 16, 2010, Myles Tortel and Venita Tortel appeared pro se in the Bonneville County case and filed a counterclaim against Zions. State Ct. Dkt., Ex. A to Erickson Aff., Dkt. 5. Stone Systems, Custom Interiors Unlimited, and Tortel Properties failed to respond or appear, however, and a default judgment was entered against them. Default Judgment, Ex. C to Erickson Aff, Dkt. 5. In September 2010, The Tortels counterclaim against Zions was dismissed when they failed to respond to Zions motion to dismiss. Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, Ex. D. to Erickson Aff, Dkt. 5. Six months later, in March 2011, summary judgment was entered against Myles Tortel. Judgment, Ex. F to Erickson Aff, Dkt. 5. Zions did not file summary judgment against Venita Tortel because she had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in December 2010. In August 2011, after Venita Tortel voluntarily dismissed her bankruptcy proceedings, Zions filed a motion for summary judgment against her. The state court MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 scheduled a hearing on that motion for October 3, 2011. On September 30, 2011 over a year and a half after Zions filed its original complaint all Defendants joined in filing a Notice of Removal from state court to federal court. Now Zions asks the Court to remand this action to state court. ANALYSIS Defendants seek to remove this action based both on diversity and federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) prohibits removal on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by Section 1332 more than one year after commencement of the action. Section 1332 refers to diversity jurisdiction. More than one year has passed since the action was filed in state court, and it was evident from the face of the state court complaint that diversity jurisdiction existed at the time the complaint was filed. Therefore, to the extent Defendants seek to remove this action based on diversity, their removal petition is not timely. Moreover, Defendants attempt to remove this case based on a federal question is equally flawed. Zions assert no federal claims in their state court complaint. And even if the Tortels counterclaim had not been dismissed and the Tortels asserted counterclaims arising under federal law as they purport, it would not give the Court subject matter over the action. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-31 (2002). In Holmes, the Supreme Court reiterated that the well-pleaded rule, which provides that whether a case arises under federal law, must be determined from the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the complaint. Id. at 830-31. It concluded MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3 that a counterclaim which appears as part of a defendant's answer, not as part of the plaintiff's complaint cannot serve as the basis for arising under jurisdiction. Id. at 831. Similarly, in this case, Tortels counterclaim asserted in its answer in state court cannot serve as the basis for arising under jurisdiction. Defendants argument that this case involves civil rights issues and these issues confer jurisdiction on this Court also fails. Defendants contend that this case raises unlawful detainer issues. But that is simply untrue. Zions does not make any unlawful detainer claims. Rather, it alleges that Zions loaned Defendants money, and Defendants failed to pay it back. Contrary to any suggestion by Defendants, such a claim does not raise civil rights issues. Accordingly, the Court will grant Zions motion to remand. The Court, however, will deny Zions request for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Courts may only award attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to a prevailing party if the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14, 101 (1980) (citations omitted). Court do not routinely award attorneys' fees to prevailing defendants routine awards would have an overly deterrent effect on civil rights plaintiffs and would discourage the vigorous private enforcement of the civil rights laws. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). This admonishment applies with special force in actions initiated by uncounseled plaintiffs. Hughes, 449 U.S. at 14. Attorney fees should be awarded against a pro se plaintiff only in rare cases Id. But, for example, if the pro se plaintiff makes repeated attempts to bring a claim that has been previously found frivolous, an award to MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4 defendants may be appropriate. Miller v. L.A. Board of Education, 827 F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir.1987). In this case, given the admonishment that attorney fees should be awarded against a pro se litigant only in rare cases and Defendants are pro se, the Court does not find that an award of attorney fees is warranted. This, however, does not mean the Court condones Defendants actions. It seems Defendants repeatedly failed to respond to Zions motions, and then at the eleventh hour sought to remove this action to federal court based on very weak grounds to avoid a summary judgment hearing against Venita Tortel. If Defendants persist in this course of conduct in federal court, an award of attorney fees may become appropriate. ORDER IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff Zions First National Bank s motion to remand (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED but the Zions request for attorney fees is DENIED. DATED: January 6, 2012 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
