80 Huntfield Drive Trust v. Contreras et al

Filing 26

ORDER REMANDING Case to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/3/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; Certified copy of Order and Docket Sheet to State Court - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

80 HUNTFIELD DRIVE TRUST,

9
10
11

Case No. 2:13-cv-00595-APG-CWH

Plaintiff,
ORDER OF REMAND
v.
CONNIE CONTRERAS et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14
This matter was removed to this federal court by defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and
15
Wells Fargo Bank (collectively, “Wells Fargo”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Wells Fargo contends that this
16
court has diversity jurisdiction over the case because defendant Connie Contreras (like Plaintiff, a
17
Nevada resident), is a sham defendant and/or was fraudulently joined to this case to defeat
18
diversity jurisdiction; as such, Ms. Contreras should be disregarded as part of the diversity
19
jurisdiction analysis.
20
Plaintiff 80 Huntfield Drive Trust (“Huntfield”) moved the court to remand the matter to
21
state court, asserting that defendant Contreras was not fraudulently joined. (Dkt. No. 15.) On
22
June 11, 2013, Huntfield filed a Supplement to its Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 23) arguing that
23
the “prior exclusive jurisdiction” doctrine precludes this court from exercising jurisdiction over
24
this case.
25
“The prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine holds that ‘when one court is exercising in rem
26
[or quasi in rem] jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem [or quasi in rem]
27
jurisdiction over the same res.’” Chapman v. Deutsche Nat’l Trust Co. (Chapman I), 651 F.3d
28

1

1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311 (2006)). Courts in

2

the Ninth Circuit “are bound to treat the doctrine as a mandatory rule, not a matter of judicial

3

discretion. . . . If the doctrine applies, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction.” Id. at 1044.
In Chapman I, the Ninth Circuit certified to the Nevada Supreme Court the questions

4
5

whether unlawful detainer and quiet title are proceedings in rem, quasi in rem, or in personam

6

under Nevada Law. Id. at 1048. The Nevada Supreme Court recently held that unlawful detainer

7

and quiet title are not in personam proceedings; they are either in rem or quasi in rem in nature.

8

Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (Chapman II), __ P.3d __, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 at

9

*5 (Nev. May 30, 2013). With this answer, the Ninth Circuit remanded the quiet title case to the

10

federal district court to determine whether or not parallel state proceedings remained pending.

11

Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (Chapman III), __ F. App’x __, 2013 WL 3157512 at

12

*1 (9th Cir. June 24, 2013). “If the Unlawful Detainer Action remains pending, the Quiet Title

13

Action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. . . . If the state action has

14

terminated, the district court may elect to proceed with the instant action.” Id.
The present case is similar to Chapman. Huntfield filed a quiet title action in state District

15
16

Court in January 2013. On February 11, 2013, Huntfield filed an unlawful detainer action in the

17

Henderson Justice Court. On April 5, 2013, Wells Fargo removed the quiet title action to this

18

court.1 The crucial fact is that the Henderson Justice Court exercised (and continued to exercise)

19

jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action before this federal court exercised jurisdiction over

20

the quiet title action by removal. Id. Because “both actions are in rem or quasi in rem, ‘the

21

doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction applies.’” Id. (quoting Chapman I, 651 F.3d at 1044).

22

Thus, removal to this federal court was improper because, based on that doctrine, this court “may

23

not exercise jurisdiction” over the case. Id. Although the unlawful detainer case appears to have

24

been resolved now and is no longer pending in the Henderson Justice Court, this court has

25
26
27
28

1

On April 2, 2013, the Henderson Justice court held a hearing and entered an “Order for Entry
of Temporary Writ of Restitution,” but stayed that Order until May 2, 2013. A Temporary Writ
of Restitution was signed and filed by the Henderson Justice Court on April 10, 2013, five days
after the quiet title action was removed to this federal court.
2

1

discretion to proceed with or remand the quiet title action. Chapman III, 2013 WL 3157512 at

2

*1. “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires

3

resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th

4

Cir. 2009). Because this case involves only the resolution of issues of Nevada law, this court

5

exercises its discretion to remand this case to the state court.

6
7
8

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS this case REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial
District Court, Clark County, Nevada.
DATED this 3rd day of July, 2013.

9
10
11

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3