United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Serwe's
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 7).
Defendant U.S. Security Associates, Inc. (“U.S.
Security”), filed a Response, (ECF No. 10), and
Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 12). For the reasons stated
herein, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is
case arises from a motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff
and a U.S. Security employee, Defendant Tia Cooks
(“Cooks”) on March 25, 2017. (First Am. Compl.
(“FAC”) ¶¶ 11, 15, ECF No. 21). On or
about September 20, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a settlement
demand letter to U.S. Security, explaining that as a result
of the collision he had “sustained serious bodily
injuries for which he required medical treatment.”
(Settlement Demand at 8, Ex. 1 to Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 7).
Plaintiff's settlement demand included special damages
totaling more than $265, 000. (Mot. to Remand 2:4-9, ECF No.
January 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada. (Compl.
6:14, ECF No. 1-2). U.S. Security was served on February 27,
2018. (Mot. to Remand 2:13-15). In his Complaint, Plaintiff
asserted a negligence claim against U.S. Security and its
unidentified employee, John Doe Driver. (See
generally Compl.). On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
Request for Exemption from state court arbitration, detailing
special damages in excess of $265, 000. (Pet. for Removal
¶ 3, ECF No. 1).
15, 2018, U.S. Security filed its Petition for Removal,
asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. ¶ 1). Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand.
After the Motion had been fully briefed, Plaintiff was
granted leave to amend the Complaint, replacing John Doe
Driver with Cooks. (Order 1:18, ECF No. 20); (FAC ¶ 3).
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) (citation omitted). 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).
plaintiff files a civil action in state court, a defendant
may remove that action to a federal district court if the
district court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have jurisdiction in
two instances. First, district courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law.
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, district courts have subject
matter jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000 and complete diversity of
citizenship exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete
diversity of citizenship means that each plaintiff must be a
citizen of a different state than each defendant. Morris
v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.
statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.
Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1317 (9th
Cir. 1998). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy
Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). The removing
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal
is proper. Id.
instant Motion, Plaintiff argues that remand is appropriate
because U.S. Security's Petition for Removal was untimely
filed and because complete diversity does not exist. (Mot. to
Remand 4:10-17, ECF No. 7). The Court will address each
argument in turn.
Timeliness of Removal
notice of removal in a diversity case must be filed within 30
days after receipt of the initial pleading. 28 ...