Coalition for Nevada's Future v. Muth et al

Filing 32

ORDER that 9 CNF's Motion to Remand is GRANTED in part -- CNF's request to remand this action back to the state court is GRANTED: the Clerk of Court is instructed to remand this case back to the First Judicial District Court in Carson Ci ty, Nevada, Case No. 15 OC 00196 1B, Dept I. The motion is also DENIED in part: CNF's request for an award of costs and attorney's fees is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 5 Muth's Motion to Dismiss this action under FRCP 12(b) and 17 Motion to set aside the state court's judgment are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/21/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 COALITION FOR NEVADA’S FUTURE, a Nevada Political Action Committee, Case No.: 2:15-cv-01749-JAD-GWF 5 Plaintiff 6 v. 7 CHARLES MUTH, an individual; BARBARA CEGAVSKE, in her official capacity as the Nevada Secretary of State, 8 9 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF 9], Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Costs and Attorney’s Fees [ECF 9], and Denying Defendant Muth’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 5] and Motion to Vacate and Set Aside State Court Judgment [ECF 17] as Moot Defendants 10 11 The impetus for this action is the referendum petition that Charles Muth filed with the 12 13 14 Nevada Secretary of State on behalf of the We Decide Coalition in August 2015.1 The Coalition for Nevada’s Future (CNF)2 timely filed a complaint challenging Muth’s referendum petition under NRS § 295.061 in the First Judicial District Court in Carson City, Nevada.3 Muth then filed a petition 15 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to remove CNF’s state-court action to federal court, arguing that federal16 question jurisdiction exists because the Nevada statutes that CNF invokes to challenge the 17 18 19 referendum petition violate Muth’s rights to due process and free speech.4 Muth has since filed a motion to dismiss this action under FRCP 12(b),5 and a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment that the state court entered after Muth filed his petition for removal.6 20 21 1 ECF 1-1 at 10–59. 2 CNF is a Nevada political-action committee. See ECF 1-1 at 2 ¶ 1. 3 ECF 1-1. 4 ECF 1 at 1–2. 26 5 ECF 5. 27 6 ECF 17. 22 23 24 25 28 1 Bookended by Muth’s motions is CNF’s motion to remand,7 which defendant Barbara 1 2 Cegavske joins.8 CNF argues that removal was improper because the parties are not diverse, the 3 complaint does not allege any cause of action arising under federal law, and Muth’s federal-law 4 defenses do not trigger federal-question jurisdiction.9 Thus, CNF requests an order remanding this 5 action back to the First Judicial District Court and awarding CNF the costs and attorney’s fees it 6 incurred as a result of the improper removal.10 7 Tacitly acknowledging the merits of CNF’s motion, Muth responds that this action could 8 have been filed in federal court if CNF had asserted a claim arising under federal law.11 And he 9 argues that an award of costs or attorney’s fees is not warranted because he filed the petition for 10 removal in good faith, not in an effort to delay a hearing before the state court.12 11 Removal of this action from the state court was improper: there is no evidence that the parties 12 are diverse, the four corners of CNF’s complaint shows that this action is based solely on Nevada 13 law, and Muth’s federal-law defenses are not sufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction. 14 Therefore, I grant the portion of CNF’s motion seeking to remand this action back to the First 15 Judicial District Court, but I decline to award CNF costs or attorney’s fees because the purposes for 16 awarding them under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) will not be served under these circumstances. And 17 because I do not have subject-matter jurisdiction, I deny as moot Muth’s motion to dismiss and 18 motion to vacate and set aside the state court’s judgment. 19 20 21 22 23 7 8 ECF 15. Barbara Cegavske, sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the State of Nevada, did not join in or express an opinion regarding CNF’s request for an award of costs and attorney’s fees. 9 24 ECF 9. ECF 9 at 5–7. 10 ECF 9 at 8–11. 26 11 ECF 19 at 3:2–6. 27 12 ECF 19 at 5–6. 25 28 2 1 2 Discussion A. Subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. 3 “The general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a),” allows defendants to remove state-court 4 actions that “originally could have been brought in federal court.”13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district 5 courts have original jurisdiction over “‘civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties 6 of the United States.’”14 “Under the canonical well-pleaded complaint rule, ‘a suit arises under 7 federal law for 28 U.S.C. § 1331 purposes only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of 8 action shows that it is based upon federal law.’”15 A defense that raises a federal question is not 9 sufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction.16 “‘If a case is improperly removed, the federal 10 court must remand the action because it has no subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the case.’”17 11 There are two fatal defects with Muth’s assertion that I have jurisdiction over this case under 12 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The first is that nothing in CNF’s well-pleaded complaint shows that either of its 13 two claims is based on federal law. CNF’s first claim seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for 14 alleged violations of NRS § 295.009(1)(a),18 which requires a referendum petition to “[e]mbrace but 15 one subject and matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto.” And CNF’s second 16 claim seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of NRS § 295.009(1)(b),19 which 17 requires the referendum petition to “[s]et forth, in not more than 200 words, a description of the 18 19 20 13 Hawaii ex rel. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 14 Hawaii ex rel., 761 F.3d at 1034 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). 22 15 Id. (quoting Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009)) (internal quotations omitted). 23 16 Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). 24 17 21 25 Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dept. of Health & Envtl. Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000)). 26 18 ECF 1-1 at 6. 27 19 ECF 1-1 at 7. 28 3 1 effect of the initiative or referendum [it] is approved by the voters.” Thus, CNF’s claims are based 2 solely on Nevada statutory law. That law, moreover, provides the exclusive method for challenging 3 whether NRS § 295.009(1)(a) or (b)’s requirements have been met: “by filing a complaint in the First 4 Judicial District Court” within a certain time after the petition is placed on file with the Nevada 5 Secretary of State.20 CNF followed this required procedure. 6 The second defect is that Muth’s argument—that I have jurisdiction regardless because his 7 defense21 is that the Nevada statues that CNF invokes to challenge Muth’s referendum petition 8 violate his due process and free speech rights22—is without merit. It has long been clear that a 9 federal-law defense is not sufficient to create original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.23 As I do 10 not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, I grant CNF’s motion to remand, and I 11 deny Muth’s pending motion to dismiss this action24 and motion to vacate and set aside the state 12 court’s declaratory and injunctive relief order as moot.25 13 B. An award of costs or attorney’s fees is not warranted. CNF seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).26 The purpose 14 15 of awarding attorney’s fees and costs under § 1447(c) is to “deter removals sought for the purpose of 16 prolonging litigation and imposing costs on the opposing party, while not undermining Congress’ 17 18 20 19 NEV. REV. STAT. § 295.061(1). 21 20 21 Cf. Pest Comm. v. Miller, 626 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding constitutional the Nevada statute that CNF’s claims arise under (NRS § 295.009)). ECF 1 at 2. 23 Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808. 24 ECF 5. 25 22 22 ECF 17. 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 ECF 9 at 8–11. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 4 1 basic decision to afford defendants a right to remove as a general matter, when the statutory criteria 2 are satisfied.”27 “[T]he standard for awarding fees [under § 1447(c)] should turn on the 3 reasonableness of removal.”28 “Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees 4 under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking 5 removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.”29 The 6 objectively reasonable standard is applied “by looking to the clarity of the law at the time of 7 removal.”30 8 That jurisdiction is established “upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by 9 the petition for removal” is a hoary rule of law31 that has remained untarnished for over a century.32 10 Because this point of law was clear when Muth filed his petition for removal in September 2015,33 I 11 am inclined to find that Muth lacked an objectively reasonable basis to remove this case. My 12 analysis, however, is further informed by Muth’s status as a pro se litigant and his basis for removing 13 this action from state court. 14 15 The Ninth Circuit instructs that pro se litigants are to follow the rules of procedure that govern this court34 and that courts should not treat them more favorably than represented parties in 16 17 27 Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005). 28 Id. at 141. 29 Id. 18 19 20 21 22 30 Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Martin, 546 U.S. at 141). 31 This rule embodies both the well-pleaded complaint and the federal-defense-insufficiency concept. 23 32 24 25 Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112–13 (1936) (collecting cases); see also Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (discussing that a federal-law defense is not sufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction); Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808 (same). 26 33 ECF 1. 27 34 King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 28 5 1 civil actions.35 But the Ninth Circuit has recognized, at least in the context of Rule 11 sanctions, that 2 “what is objectively reasonable for a pro se litigant and for an attorney may not be the same.”36 3 Consistent with this recognition, some district courts in this circuit have found that the rule that a 4 federal-law defense is not sufficient to create federal-question jurisdiction “is not intuitively obvious 5 to a pro se litigant.”37 I, too, perceive that the legal concept that a state court can rule on a question 6 of federal constitutionality, i.e., that a defense raising federal-constitutional concerns does not give 7 rise to federal-question jurisdiction, is not intuitively obvious to persons who are not steeped in the 8 doctrines governing federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Moreover, CNF’s state court proceeding 9 continued in spite of Muth’s remand petition, and concluded with an order granting declaratory and 10 injunctive relief in CNF’s favor.38 In light of these circumstances, I decline to grant CNF an award 11 of costs or attorney’s fees. 12 Conclusion 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that CNF’s 14 motion to remand [ECF 9] is GRANTED in part—CNF’s request to remand this action back to the 15 state court is GRANTED: the Clerk of Court is instructed to remand this case back to the First 16 Judicial District Court in Carson City, Nevada, Case No. 15 OC 00196 1B, Dept I. The motion is 17 also DENIED in part: CNF’s request for an award of costs and attorney’s fees is DENIED. 18 19 20 21 22 35 Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986). 36 Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Comm. Enter., Inc., 892 F.2d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 24 37 25 26 27 28 Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v. John, Case No. C-11-5585 EMC, 2012 WL 132144 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012) (unpublished) (citation omitted); Onewest Bank, FSB v. Sanchez, Case No. C-10-00936 SI, 2010 WL 3076256 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010) (unpublished). 38 See ECF 22 at 8–24. 6 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Muth’s motion to dismiss this action under FRCP 12(b) 2 [ECF 5] and motion to vacate and set aside the state court’s judgment [ECF 17] are DENIED as 3 moot. 4 The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 5 Dated this 21st day of December, 2015. 6 7 8 _________________________________ ______________________ _ _ _ __ _ Jennifer A. Dorsey r A. Dorsey s United States District Judge D District Judge dg dg 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?