Augusta Investment Management, LLC v. Grunstad et al

Filing 53

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 50 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Clark. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 52 Pl aintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/27/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CC: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet Sent to State Court - ADR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2
3
4

AUGUSTA INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,

5

vs.
6
7

DOMONIC GRUNSTAD, et al.,
Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00125-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court is the renewed Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 50), filed by

10
11

Plaintiff Augusta Investment Management, LLC (“Plaintiff”) on October 18, 2016.1 No

12

defendant filed a response, and the deadline to do so has passed. For the reasons discussed

13

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

14

I.

BACKGROUND

15

This action involves a dispute over property that was subject to a homeowners’

16

association “super-priority” lien for delinquent assessment fees. On January 22, 2015, former

17

Defendant BOA removed the case to this Court. (See Pet. for Removal, ECF No. 1). Shortly

18

thereafter, Plaintiff filed its original Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 7), which the Court denied,

19

(ECF No. 18). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff renews its request to remand this case to state

20

court. (See Mot. to Remand 4:24–5:4, ECF No. 50).

21
22
1

23
24
25

Plaintiff originally filed a combined Motion to Remand and Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint.
(ECF No. 50). The Clerk’s Office issued a Notice of Non-Compliance with Local Rule IC 2-2 for failure to file
these motions separately and advised Plaintiff’s counsel to file the Motion to Remand separately under the
correct event. (ECF No. 51). In response, Plaintiff incorrectly filed an additional Motion to File a Second
Amended Complaint instead of a motion to remand. (ECF No. 52). Despite this error, the Court will construe the
original motion filed under the “Motion to Amend Complaint” event as the Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 50),
and the second motion as the Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 52).

Page 1 of 3

1
2

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only those powers granted by

3

the Constitution and by statute. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008)

4

(citation omitted). For this reason, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the

5

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1447(c).

7

A defendant may remove an action to federal court only if the district court has original

8

jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal statutes are to be ‘strictly

9

construed’ against removal jurisdiction.” Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th

10

Cir. 2012) (quoting Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)). The party

11

asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of overcoming the presumption against federal

12

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

13

Specifically, federal courts must reject federal jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right

14

of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting

15

Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)); see also Matheson v.

16

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (noting

17

that “[w]here it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in

18

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the

19

amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold”).

20

District courts have subject matter jurisdiction in two instances. First, district courts

21

have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1331. Second, district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where no

23

plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as a defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds

24

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

25

Page 2 of 3

1

III.

DISCUSSION
Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and

2
3

authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for

4

attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” D. Nev. R. 7-2(d). Given

5

the defendants’ failure to file an opposition, the Court grants the Motion to Remand pursuant to

6

Local Rule 7-2(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s pending Motion to File a Second Amended

7

Complaint, (ECF No. 52), will be denied as moot.

8

IV.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 50), is

GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial
District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Clark.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Second Amended
Complaint, (ECF No. 52), is DENIED as moot.
DATED this _____ day of November, 2016.
27

16
17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3