United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, Chief Judge
before the Court is the Motion for Remand, (ECF No. 4), filed
by Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon, Corp.
(“Plaintiff”). Pro se Defendant John W. Mann
(“Defendant”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 12), and
Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 18). For the following
reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
initiated this case in state court by filing a Verified
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Complaint”),
seeking possession of the real property located at 775
Spanish Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89110 (“the
Property”). (See Ex. A to Pet. for Removal
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that it
purchased the Property at a trustee's sale, but Defendant
remained in possession of the Property. (Id.
¶¶ 4-8). Plaintiff requests as relief possession of
the Property, rent of no more than $1, 000.00, and costs and
fees in the total amount of $596. (Id. at 9-10).
Defendant subsequently removed the case to this Court.
(See Pet. for Removal, ECF No. 1).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only
those powers granted by the Constitution and by statute.
See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th
Cir. 2008). For this reason, “[i]f at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Among other cases,
the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction of civil actions where there is diversity of
citizenship between the parties and the amount in
controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,
000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
“burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the
party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize
Frize, Inc. v. Matrix Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th
Cir. 1999). Any doubt as to the right of removal is resolved
in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d
564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The strong presumption
against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always
has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
Id.; see also Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach
& Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990).
asserts that removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332 because a separate case involving the same parties and
Property has been removed to this Court. (See Pet.
for Removal ¶ 18, ECF No. 4). In addition, Defendant
“concedes that he is a resident of the state of
Nevada” and contends that “the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum of $75, 000.” (Resp.
misconstrues the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. The
existence of a related case in federal court does not allow
the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a
separately filed case. See, e.g., Viropro, Inc.
v. Amsel, No. 2:06-cv-01367-LRH-GWF, 2007 WL 37670, at
*1 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2007). Instead, to establish subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to diversity of citizenship, the
party asserting jurisdiction must show: (1) complete
diversity of citizenship among opposing parties; and (2) an
amount in controversy exceeding $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Where a defendant removes a plaintiff's state
action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the defendant
must either: (1) demonstrate that it is facially evident from
the plaintiff's complaint that the plaintiff seeks in
excess of $75, 000; or (2) prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the
jurisdictional limit. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004).
preliminary matter, even where complete diversity exists
between parties, an action cannot be removed by a local
defendant, i.e. a defendant who is a citizen of the state in
which the action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b);
Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct, 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th
Cir. 2004). In the instant action, Defendant is a citizen of
Nevada. (See Pet. for Removal, ECF No. 1).
Therefore, Defendant, a local citizen, cannot remove the
action. Notwithstanding this defect, removal is nevertheless
improper for failure to satisfy the amount in controversy
requirement. Plaintiff seeks possession of the Property and
claims up to $1, 000.00 in rent. (See Compl. ¶
10). Clearly, the amount at stake in the underlying action is
less than $75, 000.
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 4),
is GRANTED and this case is hereby REMANDED to the Eighth
Judicial District Court. The Clerk of Court shall remand this