Guillen et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER Denying 21 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

ESTELLA M. GUILLEN, et al.,

9
10
11
12

2:11-CV-1068 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
SERVICING, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is plaintiffs Guillen, et. al.’s pro se motion to remand. (Doc. #21).

17

Defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. filed an opposition. (Doc. #22). Plaintiffs

18

did not reply.

19

Plaintiffs filed their case in state court in May 2011. (Doc. #1, Ex. 1). Defendants removed

20

the case to federal court on June 29, 2011. (Doc. #1). One month later, defendants filed a motion

21

to dismiss. (Doc. #8). After the motion to dismiss was fully briefed by the parties (docs. #8, #13,

22

and #18), plaintiffs filed a motion to remand (doc. #21). The motion to remand was filed almost

23

three months after the case had originally been removed by the defendants.

24

The instant motion argues that the case should be remanded to state court due to (1) Burford

25

abstention, (2) Younger abstention, and (3) Nevada’s more liberal pleading standards. (Doc. #21).

26

Plaintiffs never challenge this court’s diversity jurisdiction over the suit.

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect

1

other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the

2

notice of removal under section 1446(a).”

3

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion almost 90 days after the case was removed to this court.

4

At this point in the litigation, plaintiffs’ motion to remand can only be based on lack of subject

5

matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As stated above, plaintiffs have never challenged the

6

court’s diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to remand is time barred.

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs Guillen, et. al.’s

9
10

motion to remand (doc. #21) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED October 20, 2011.

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-