Gastelum v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 36

ORDER remanding this action to Clark County District Court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF -CC Clark County District Court - DKJ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

CLAUDIA GASTELUM,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

vs.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; CINEMA
GREENBERG,

8

Defendants.

9

)
) Case No.: 2:14-cv-0773-GMN-CWH
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Pending before the Court is the case of Gastelum v. American Family Mutual Insurance

10
11

Company, (2:14-cv-0773-GMN-CWH). On November 26, 2014, the Court ordered that

12

Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company (“American Family”) show cause as

13

to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 33).

14

On December 17, 2014, American Family filed a Response. (ECF No. 35). For the reasons

15

stated herein, the Court will remand this case to Clark County District Court.

16

I.

17

BACKGROUND
This action centers upon Plaintiff Claudia Gastelum’s allegations that Defendants

18

American Family and Cinema Greenberg breached the terms of a binding arbitration decision

19

by failing to issue a $47,000 payment as ordered by the arbitrator who presided over their

20

dispute. (Compl. 8:19-9:6, ECF No. 1-1).

21

This case was originally filed in Clark County District Court on October 16, 2014. (Id. at

22

1). After American Family filed a notice of removal on January 9, 2014, this case was removed

23

to federal district court and was assigned to Judge Robert C. Jones. First Pet. for Removal at 1,

24

Gastelum v. American Family Mutual Insurance, No. 14-cv-0045-RCJ-VCF, (D. Nev. Jan. 9,

25

2014), ECF No. 1. American Family cited diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

Page 1 of 4

1

as the basis for that removal. Id. Subsequently, American Family filed a motion to voluntarily

2

remand, which stated that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Cinema Greenberg is a

3

non-diverse defendant. Mot. to Remand 3:1-11, Gastelum v. American Family Mutual

4

Insurance, No. 14-cv-0045-RCJ-VCF, (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2014), ECF No. 5. Prior to any ruling

5

upon that motion, the Clark County District Court issued an order on March 19, 2014, which

6

purported to dismiss Defendant Greenberg from this case. (ECF No. 1-5). Subsequently, on

7

April 28, 2014, Judge Jones granted American Family’s motion and remanded the case to Clark

8

County District Court. Remand Order 2:13-14, Gastelum v. American Family Mutual

9

Insurance, No. 14-cv-0045-RCJ-VCF, (D. Nev. April 28, 2014), ECF No. 9.

10

American Family removed the action to this Court on May 15, 2014, again citing

11

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Second Pet. for Removal 2:7-10, ECF No.

12

1). On November 26, 2014, the Court issued a Minute Order requiring, inter alia, that

13

American Family show that the Clark County District Court had jurisdiction to dismiss

14

Defendant Greenberg through its March 29, 2014, order. (ECF No. 33).

15

II.

16

LEGAL STANDARD
“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject

17

matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal statutes are

18

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

19

1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in

20

the first instance.” Id. (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

21

1979)). To remove a state law civil action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction,

22

a removing defendant must show that the parties are completely diverse and that the matter in

23

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity of

24

citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different

25

state than each defendant. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).

Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4

III.

ANALYSIS
As discussed infra, the Court finds that there is not complete diversity between the

parties in this case, and therefore this action will be remanded to Clark County District Court.
It is well established that, “[R]emoval divests the state court of jurisdiction.” Karl v.

5

Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 1245 (D. Nev. 2010) aff’d, 553 F. App’x 733

6

(9th Cir. 2014). After removal to federal court, “[a]ny subsequent proceedings in state court on

7

the case are void ab initio.” Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d 1248, 1254-55 (11th Cir.

8

1988) (citing Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118 (1882)). In fact, “the filing of a removal

9

petition terminates the state court’s jurisdiction until the case is remanded, even in a case

10

improperly removed.” Id. at 1257 n.11 (citing Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F.2d 432, 433 (5th Cir.

11

1957)) (emphasis added).

12

Because this case was removed on January 9, 2014, and was not remanded until April

13

28, 2014, the Clark County District Court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Defendant Greenberg

14

on March 19, 2014. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Greenberg is still a party to

15

this case. It is undisputed that Plaintiff and Defendant Greenberg are both Nevada citizens.

16

(See Compl. 2:11-12, ECF No. 1-1); Mot. for Remand 3:1-11, Gastelum v. American Family

17

Mutual Insurance, No. 14-cv-0045-RCJ-VCF, (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2014), ECF No. 5. Therefore,

18

this case fails to meet the complete diversity requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

19

American Family nevertheless argues that the Court should disregard the fact that the

20

Clark County District Court’s dismissal order was made without jurisdiction because “the issue

21

has caused no prejudice to the Plaintiff.” (Resp. to Show Cause Ord. at 11, ECF No. 35).

22

However, subject matter jurisdiction is not subject to the Court’s discretion—it is a doctrine of

23

preeminent importance that determines whether the Court holds the requisite authority to issue

24

a judgment in a case. Unlike procedural defects, which can often be disregarded if not timely

25

raised, “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can

Page 3 of 4

1

never be forfeited or waived.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Therefore,

2

the Court is not at liberty to exceed the scope of its statutory and constitutional authority even if

3

Plaintiff has suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, the Court will remand this case.1

4

IV.

5
6

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that this action is remanded to Clark County District

Court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case.

7

DATED this 23rd day of December, 2014.

8
9

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

Because complete diversity does not exist between Plaintiff and Defendant Greenberg, the Court need not
determine whether the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

Page 4 of 4