Ganiev et al v. Nugent et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Azizkhon Ganiev, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Robert Lynn Nugent, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-02460-PHX-SHD
ORDER
On April 9, 2026, Defendants removed this action from La Paz County Superior
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 and Local Rule 3.6. (Doc. 1.) Defendants
argued that under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides that defendants may remove from
State court “any civil action” over which federal district courts “have original jurisdiction,”
removal was proper because (1) there was complete diversity of citizenship among the
parties, and (2) the amount in controversy “exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of
$75,000.” (Id. at 4.) Four days later, on April 13, 2026, Defendants filed an unopposed
motion to remand to state court. (Doc. 4.) In their motion, Defendants state that they were
made aware that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and that federal courts
therefore lack original jurisdiction over this case. (Id.)
“To properly remove an action based on diversity jurisdiction, the amount in
controversy must exceed the sum of $75,000.” Garraway v. Saatchi & Saatchi North Am.,
Inc., 2019 WL 3408688, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). The parties
agree that the damages sought in the complaint filed in state court do not exceed the
Case 2:26-cv-02460-SHD Document 6 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
jurisdictional minimum. Thus, removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 was improper, and remand
to the state court is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Remand to State Court, (Doc. 4).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to remand this action
to the La Paz County Superior Court and close this case.
Dated this 21st day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02460-SHD Document 6 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 2