United States District Court, D. Nevada
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 6800 E. LAKE MEAD, Plaintiffs,
SHANAN L. HOWARD, et al., Defendants.
before the court is plaintiff Saticoy Bay LLC Series 6800 E.
Lake Mead's (“Saticoy Bay”) motion to remand.
(ECF No. 9). No. defendant has filed a response, and the time
for doing so has since passed.
present case concerns a dispute over real property located at
6800 E. Lake Mead Blvd., Unit 1025, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89156
(“the property”). (ECF No. 4).
February 22, 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint in state court
against Shanan Howard, Mountainside Unit Owners Association
(“the HOA”), Mid America Mortgage
(“MAM”), LoanCare, LLC (“LoanCare”),
and Quality Loan Service Corporation (“QLSC”).
(ECF No. 4-2). Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for
declaratory relief, quiet title, unjust enrichment, and
injunctive relief. Id.
March 29, 2018, defendants MAM and LoanCare
(“defendants”) filed a petition for removal in
this court. (ECF No. 4). Notably, MAM and LoanCare did not
obtain consent from the HOA or QLSC prior to filing the
petition for removal. (ECF No. 9).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip.
& Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by
the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §
a defendant has thirty (30) days upon notice of removability
to remove a case to federal court. Durham v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)). Defendants are not
charged with notice of removability “until they've
received a paper that gives them enough information to
remove.” Id. at 1251.
“the ‘thirty day time period [for removal] . . .
starts to run from defendant's receipt of the initial
pleading only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its
face' the facts necessary for federal court
jurisdiction.” Id. at 1250 (quoting Harris
v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 690-91
(9th Cir. 2005) (alterations in original)). “Otherwise,
the thirty-day clock doesn't begin ticking until a
defendant receives ‘a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper' from which it can determine
that the case is removable. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.
plaintiff may challenge removal by timely filing a motion to
remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand to state court is
proper if the district court lacks jurisdiction. Id.
“A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a
particular case unless the contrary affirmatively
appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes
of Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.
1989). Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction must exist
at the time an action is commenced. Mallard Auto. Grp.,
Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.Supp.2d 949, 952 (D. Nev.
2004) (citing Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal.
State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th
motion to remand, the removing defendant faces a strong
presumption against removal, and bears the burden of
establishing that removal is proper. Sanchez v.
Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04
(9th Cir. 1996); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566-67 (9th Cir. 1992).
initial matter, the court notes that defendant's failure
to respond constitutes a consent to the granting of
plaintiff's motion to remand. See Local Rule
7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file
points and authorities in response to any motion, except a
motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or a motion for attorney's
fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the
motion.”). Additionally, plaintiff's motion to
remand demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction to
hear this action, and that plaintiff's timely-filed
motion merits the requested relief.
federal court must possess jurisdiction over an action to
hear the dispute. Weeping Hollow Avenue Trust v.
Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1112. If a court determines at
any time that it lacks subject matter over an action, it must
dismiss or remand the case as appropriate. See Id.
at 1114 (reversing and remanding with instructions to remand