United States District Court, D. Nevada
For Herbert Goforth, II, Individually and as Heir of the Estate of Herbert Goforth, III, Deceased, Rosa Goforth, Individually and as Heir of the Estate of Herbert Goforth, III, Deceased, Herbert Goforth, II, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Herbert Goforth, III, Deceased, Plaintiffs: Cal J. Potter, III, Cal J. Potter, IV, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Potter Law Offices, Las Vegas, NV.
For Nevada Power Company, NV Energy, Inc., Silver Merger Sub, Inc., MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, Defendants: Howard J. Russell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, Las Vegas, NV; Patrick H. Hicks, Rick D Roskelley, Littler Mendelson, PC, LEAD ATTORNEY, Las Vegas, NV.
For Raymond A. Keplar, Keps Training Service, LLC, Defendants: T James Truman, LEAD ATTORNEY, T. James Truman & Associates, Las Vegas, NV.
For Hubbell Incorporated Delaware, doing business as AB Chance: Aliisa Natrona Leon, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jonathan B Owens, Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sander, Las Vegas, NV.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (ECF No. 23)
This case arises from the untimely death of Herbert Goforth, III. Goforth, III died while employed as a lineman for Nevada Power Company after he fell from an electrical
line tower during a training exercise. Am. Compl. ¶ 15, ECF No. 1 Ex. B. Goforth, III's estate and heirs filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, alleging ten state law claims. Defendants filed a Petition for Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand to state court. ECF No. 23. Because Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that removal jurisdiction is proper, the Court remands this action back to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County.
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint contains ten state law claims: (1) wrongful death/negligence; (2) negligence per se ; (3) negligence/gross negligence; (4) fraud; (5) negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision; (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (7) strict product liability; (8) breach of warranty; (9) respondeat superior ; and (10) punitive/exemplary damages. Am. Compl. at 6-18. In support of their negligence per se claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated several Occupational Safety and Health Administration (" OSHA" ) regulations. Defendants claim this Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim, and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, because of these alleged violations of federal law. Pet. for Removal at 2-3. In their Motion to Remand, ...