G. Dallas Horton & Associates v. Romero et al

Filing 66

ORDER Granting 62 Motion to Remand to State Court. The case is REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; CC: State Court with certified copies of order and docket sheet - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

G. DALLAS HORTON & ASSOCIATES,

10

Case No. 2:12-cv-00989-MMD-VCF

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.

11
12

(Plf.’s Motion to Remand – dkt. no. 62)

GLORIA ROMERO, et. al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

I.

SUMMARY

16

Before the Court is Plaintiff G. Dallas Horton & Associates’ Motion to Remand.

17

(Dkt. no. 62.) The Motion is unopposed. For the reason set forth below, the Motion is

18

granted.

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

G. Dallas Horton & Associates (“Horton”), a law firm based in Clark County,

21

Nevada, represented Gloria Romero in a lawsuit brought on Ms. Romero’s behalf

22

stemming from a January 19, 2006, automobile accident. (See dkt. no. 1-1 at ¶ 5.)

23

Horton filed this suit on February 10, 2012, in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark

24

County, Nevada, against numerous defendants, seeking to recover attorney’s fees from

25

the $28,638.36 awarded in the litigation settlement. (See dkt. no. 1-1 at ¶ 10.) Horton

26

alleges that Defendants claim various interests in the settlement amount, but that it is

27

entitled to reimbursement prior to the distribution of the remaining funds to any

28

Defendants. (Id.)

1

On June 11, 2012, Defendant Unite Here Health (“UHH”), a Taft-Hartley

2

Employee Benefit Trust Fund whose affairs are governed by the Employee Retirement

3

Income Security Act of 1974, removed the action to this Court on the grounds that this

4

Court retains federal question jurisdiction to hear Horton’s claims against UHH and

5

supplemental jurisdiction to hear the remaining claims against the remaining defendants.

6

(See dkt. no. 1 at 4.)

7

On November 26, 2012, the Court granted Horton and UHH’s stipulation to

8

dismiss Horton’s claim against UHH. (Dkt. no. 61.) Horton thereafter filed this Motion

9

seeking to remand the remaining claims to state court. (Dkt. no. 62.) No Defendant

10

opposes the Motion.

11

III.

LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may remove an action to federal court if the plaintiff could have

12
13

initially filed the complaint in federal court.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

If removal was

14

improper and the federal court lacks jurisdiction, the federal court must remand the case

15

to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The “presence or absence of federal-question

16

jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal

17

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s

18

properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

19

A district court analyzes jurisdiction “on the basis of the pleadings filed at the time

20

of removal without reference to subsequent amendments.” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l

21

Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998).

22

IV.

DISCUSSION

23

After the dismissal of Horton’s claims against UHH, only state law claims persist

24

against the remaining Defendants. Based upon the Court’s review of the record, no

25

federal question exists in the claims against the remaining Defendants, and the

26

requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not met as the amount in controversy does not

27

appear to exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

28

///
2

1

Although no basis for jurisdiction exists after dismissal of UHH, a district court in

2

this circumstance may exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the remaining

3

state law claims. This may be appropriate in circumstances where the need for judicial

4

economy counsels in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the remaining claims. As a

5

result, dismissal of a lone jurisdiction-granting claim does not automatically render a

6

federal court without jurisdiction to hear the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §

7

1367(c)(3); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“It is well

8

settled that a federal court does have the power to hear claims that would not be

9

independently removable even after the basis for removal jurisdiction is dropped from

10

the proceedings.”).

11

Here, removal was not opposed by any defendant, and judicial economy would

12

not be served by litigating the suit in this Court. The Court thus declines to exercise

13

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This matter is remanded to the state

14

court for further proceedings.

15

V.

CONCLUSION

16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff G. Dallas Horton & Associates’

17

Motion to Remand (dkt. no. 62.) is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the Eighth

18

Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada.

19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court close this case.
DATED THIS 14th day of January 201
2013

21
22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3