United States District Court, D. Nevada
April 28, 2014
CLAUDIA GASTELUM, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE, doing business as AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE, a Wisconsin corporation; CINEMA GREENBERG, Esq., Individually; DOE INDIVIDUALS I-X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, Defendants.
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
This case arises out of a car accident in Las Vegas. (Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1-2, at 4). Plaintiff Claudia Gastelum, a Nevada resident, brought suit in of the State of Nevada, asserting various causes of action against Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance ("American Family"), a Wisconsin Corporation, and its employee, Cinema Greenberg ("Greenberg"), who is also a Nevada resident. ( Id. at ¶¶ 3, 10-16; Mot. Remand, ECF No. 5, at 5). On January 9, 2014, American Family filed a notice of removal, contending that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1). On January 15, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss Defendant Greenberg from the underlying state court action, but the state court has not yet ruled on the motion. (Reply, ECF No. 7, at 2).
American Family has now voluntarily moved to remand, (Mot. Remand, ECF No. 5), acknowledging that removal was premature because the parties are still awaiting the state court's written order dismissing Greenberg from the action, ( id. at 3). Plaintiff agrees and purports to join the motion. (Resp. Mot. Remand, ECF No. 6, at 2).
In diversity actions, all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants. See, e.g., Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 380 (1978) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 78 U.S. 172 (1806)). As the parties concede, Plaintiff and Defendant Greenberg are both Nevada citizens, (Mot. Remand, ECF No. 5, at 3; Resp. Mot. Remand, ECF No. 6, at 10), meaning that complete diversity is presently lacking in this case, see Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.") (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332, and the motion to remand (ECF No. 5) is granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to remand (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.