The Seasons Homeowners Association Inc. v. Richmond American Homes of Nevada, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER Denying Defendant Aspen's 29 Motion for the Court to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 01/06/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

The SEASONS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff(s),

9

ORDER

v.

10
11

Case No. 2:16-CV-1816 JCM (CWH)

RICHMOND HOMES OF NEVADA, INC.,
et al.,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14

Presently before the court is defendant Aspen Manufacturing Holding, Inc.’s (“Aspen”)

15

motion for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff Seasons

16

Homeowners Association, Inc. filed a response. (ECF No. 33).

17

I.

Facts & Background

18

This is a class action case under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §

19

1332(d)(2). On June 27, 2013, plaintiff filed its first amended complaint in state court. (ECF No.

20

17-5). On November 6, 2013, plaintiff received class certification in state court for the underlying

21

case (“Seasons”). (ECF No 17-7). On July 30, 2016, defendant Aspen removed the instant case

22

to federal court. (ECF No. 1).

23

In October 2013, the state court granted plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the instant case

24

with another state court case, Turner v. Richmond American Homes et al. (“Turner”), for discovery

25

purposes. (ECF No. 29 at 5). In February 2015, the state court granted plaintiff’s second motion

26

to consolidate the Seasons and Turner cases with another state court case, In re Aspen BB Series

27

Evaporator Coil Litigation (“In re Aspen”), also for discovery purposes. (ECF No. 29 at 5).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

In the instant motion, defendant Aspen requests that the court exercise supplemental

2

jurisdiction over the Turner and In re Aspen state court cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (ECF

3

No. 29).

4

II.

5
6

Discussion
As an initial matter, the court finds no response necessary and further finds the motion

properly resolved without oral argument. See LR 78-1.

7

Defendant Aspen asks that the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over two separate,

8

but related, cases that are presently pending before the Nevada state court. (ECF No. 29).

9

Specifically, defendant Aspen argues that the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over

10

Turner and In re Aspen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is appropriate because the three cases

11

share a common nucleus of operative facts. (ECF No. 29). Defendant Aspen asserts that “the

12

factual allegations between the cases are virtually identical.” (ECF No. 29 at 13). Defendant

13

Aspen further contends that interests in judicial economy, convenience of the parties, and avoiding

14

inconsistent results favor an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. (ECF No. 29 at 13).

15

“Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear and decide state-law claims along

16

with federal-law claims when they ‘are so related to claims in the action within such original

17

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.’” Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr. v.

18

Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 387 (1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)

19

provides, in relevant part, as follows:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the
district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part
of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or
intervention of additional parties.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (emphasis added).
The court finds that § 1367 is inapplicable to the instant motion because defendant Aspen
is not requesting that the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, but rather
two separate state court cases. To exercise jurisdiction over an entire case, as opposed to a claim,
a federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992).
-2-

1

While the Nevada state court consolidated Turner and In re Aspen with the instant Seasons

2

case (prior to its removal to federal court), it did so solely for discovery purposes—i.e., having

3

common discovery for the three cases so as to allow them to be managed by the same judge and

4

special master. (ECF No. 29 at 11). Because the three cases remained separate and independent

5

cases in all other regards, jurisdiction over the two state court cases cannot be based on

6

supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

7

Accordingly, the court will deny defendant Aspen’s motion for the court to exercise

8

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367 over the two state court cases, Turner and In re Aspen.

9

(ECF No. 29).

10

III.

Conclusion

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Aspen’s

13

motion for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (ECF No. 29) be, and the same hereby

14

is, DENIED.

15
16
17

DATED January 6, 2017.
______________________________
__ __
__________________________________________
NIT
ITED STATES
IT
IT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-