Bank Of New York Mellon v. Mann

Filing 10

ORDER Remanding Case to State Court. Case terminated. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, cc: State Court with Certified Docket Sheet - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

JOHN W. MANN,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 2:17-cv-01262-APG-NJK
Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Defendant.

9
10

Defendant John W. Mann removed this action from Nevada state court. ECF No. 1.

11

However, because it did not appear that this court has subject matter jurisdiction under either

12

diversity or federal question jurisdiction, I ordered Mann to show cause why the case should not

13

be remanded to state court.

14

A defendant may remove a state court case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) only when “the

15

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” If removal is sought based on

16

diversity of citizenship, the suit must be between citizens of different states and the amount in

17

controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

18

Additionally, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under

19

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The presence or

20

absence of a federal question is determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar Inc. v.

21

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under that rule, federal question jurisdiction exists “only

22

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id.

23

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a

24

particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes

25

of the Colville Res., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). The “‘strong presumption’ against

26

removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal

27
28

1

is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Remand is required if the court

2

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

3

Mann has not shown either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. In his response to

4

my Order to Show Cause, Mann argues that this court has jurisdiction under Article VI of the

5

U.S. Constitution and that district courts have appellate jurisdiction over cases arising out of

6

justice court. He also argues he cannot get a fair trial in state court.

7

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides, among other things, that the U.S.

8

Constitution and federal law are the “supreme Law of the Land.” However, the fact that federal

9

law is the supreme law of the land does not transmute plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon’s state

10

law unlawful detainer claim into a federal one. To the extent Mann is referring to Article VI,

11

section 6 of the Nevada Constitution, that provision provides that district courts have appellate

12

jurisdiction from the justice courts. However, the district courts to which that provision refers are

13

the district courts of the State of Nevada, not federal district courts. Finally, Mann has not

14

presented any basis to conclude he will be denied due process in the Nevada state court system.

15
16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case is remanded to the state court from which it
was removed for all further proceedings. The clerk of the court is instructed to close this case.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2017.

18
19
20

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2