Chesnut v. Samouel
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/10/19 GRANTING 45 Motion to Remand. The Clerk of Court shall REMAND this action to Eagle County District Court and shall CLOSE the case here. (nmarb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00550-KLM
COLBY CHESTNUT, and
DB POWER, INC., doing business as DP Power & Lighting,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Myles Nardi’s (“Nardi”) Motion to
Remand Action to State Court [#45]1 (the “Motion”).2 The Motion [#45] is unopposed.
On February 25, 2019, this action was removed from Eagle County District Court in
Colorado. See Notice of Removal [#1]. The Notice of Removal [#1] asserts that the
removal is based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Plaintiff
Colby Chestnut is a resident of Colorado, Defendant Gina Samouel (“Samouel”) is a
resident of California, and more than $75,000 is at issue. On August 8, 2019, the Court
“[#45]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). This convention is used throughout this Order.
This case has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), on consent of the parties. See [#21, #27, #28,
granted Plaintiff Nardi’s motion to join this action. Order [#38]. Plaintiff Nardi and
Defendant Samouel are both citizens of California. See [#39] ¶ 2; [#40] ¶ 1. Plaintiffs
assert only state law claims in this matter stemming from a vehicle accident. See [#39,
#40]. With the joinder of Plaintiff Nardi, the parties agree that this action must now be
remanded because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged by a party or raised sua sponte by
the court at any point in the proceeding. See, e.g., Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S.
6, 16-19, (1951); Harris v. Illinois–California Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1366 (10th Cir.
1982). Because “federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” the Court must have a
statutory basis to exercise its jurisdiction. Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir.
2002). Statutes conferring subject-matter jurisdiction on federal courts are to be strictly
construed. F. & S. Const. Co. v. Jensen, 337 F.2d 160, 161 (10th Cir. 1964).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different States . . . .”
“When our jurisdiction relies solely on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, each
defendant must be diverse from each plaintiff.” Grice v. CVR Energy, Inc., 921 F.3d 966,
968 (10th Cir. 2019). In other words, “each and every defendant must be a resident of a
different state than the plaintiff.” Jones v. Jones, 741 F. App’x 604, 605 (10th Cir. 2018)
(citing Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir.
2015)). Here, Defendant Samouel and new Plaintiff Nardi are both citizens of California,
and thus there is no longer complete diversity. Consequently the Court has no diversity
jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[i]f at any time before final judgment it
appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#45] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
shall REMAND this action to Eagle County District Court and shall CLOSE the case here.
Dated: October 10, 2019
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?