United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is plaintiffs Maxine Hopkinson, Michael
Terpin, and Royal Paradise LLC's (collectively,
“plaintiffs”) motion to remand. (ECF No. 6).
Defendant Dominic Marrocco (“Marrocco”) filed a
response (ECF No. 7), to which plaintiffs replied (ECF No.
action arises from breach of contract claims concerning real
properties located at 6740 and 6760 Tomiyasu Lane in Las
Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 3 at 6). Plaintiffs allege that they
entered into an agreement with Marrocco for the sale of the
two properties, but that Marrocco later refused to complete
the transaction unless plaintiffs paid more than the
contracted price. Id. at 12-13.
December 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a complaint in Nevada
state court against Marrocco and three other defendants. (ECF
No. 6 at 5). On February 28, 2019, Marrocco filed a notice of
removal to federal court. Id. at 6. Marrocco is a
citizen of the United Kingdom. (ECF No. 3 at 2). Defendants
Wolfe Thompson, 6750 TL Series, and Tomiyasu Holdings are
citizens of Nevada. Id. at 5.
March 13, 2019, plaintiffs submitted a motion to remand,
which the court now addresses. (ECF No. 6).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip.
& Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978).
“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.
notice of removability, a defendant has thirty days to remove
a case to federal court once he knows or should have known
that the case was removable. 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. § 1446(b)(3)).
plaintiff may challenge removal by timely filing a motion to
remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). On a 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).
U.S.C. § 1332 allows federal courts to exercise
diversity jurisdiction in civil actions between citizens of
different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
However, the forum defendant rule confines removal based on
diversity jurisdiction to “instances where no defendant
is a citizen of the forum state.” 28 U.S.C. §
1441(b); see also Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc.,
456 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2006).
the plaintiffs filed this action in Nevada state court and at
least one defendant is a citizen of Nevada. (ECF No. 3 at
5-6). Therefore, the forum defendant rule bars the court from