Oak Park Homeowners Association v. Ludden et al

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 14 Unopposed Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/8/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; CC: State Court with certified copies of docket sheet and order - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11

OAK PARK HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a Nevada Non-Profit
Cooperative Cooperation,

Case No. 2:12-cv-00824-MMD-VCF
ORDER

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

(Motion to Remand – #14)

v.
SHARON LUDDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Before the Court is Defendant Sharon Ludden and David Burke’s unopposed

18

Motion to Remand. (dkt. no. 14.) Plaintiff Oak Park Homeowners Association filed this

19

interpleader action in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada on April 14, 2012. (dkt. no. 1

20

at 5-17.) Defendant United States Internal Revenue Service Department (“IRS”)

21

removed the action to this Court on May 16, 2012 on the basis of federal subject matter

22

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1442(a), 1444, and 1446(b). (dkt. no. 1 at 1-3.)

23

The IRS removed the action because it had placed a lien on the real property pursuant

24

to a tax bill due from a person named “David Burke,” who was later determined to be the

25

wrong party. The IRS subsequently discovered that the lien was wrongfully filed on the

26

real property and that the David Burke named in the Complaint is not the same person

27

who owed a tax bill. Defendant IRS accordingly disclaimed any interest in the

28

1

interpleaded funds, and does not object to remanding the case to state court. (dkt. no.

2

13 at 2.)

3

Defendants Ludden and Burke argue that because the IRS no longer has an

4

interest in this case, the Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.

5

P. 12(h)(3). The Court agrees, and remands pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any

6

time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

7

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).

8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.

9

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

10

ENTERED THIS 8th day of August, 2012.

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2