Bank of New York Mellon v. Mann

Filing 14

ORDER that 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 8 Motion to Consolidate Cases is DISMISSED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that 3 Motion to Amend Answer is DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/25/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: certified copies of Order and Docket Sheet mailed to Las Vegas Township Justice Court - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-1891 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
JOHN W. MANN,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon’s (BNYM) motion to
remand. (ECF No. 9).

15

Also before the court is defendant Mann’s motion to consolidate cases. (ECF No. 8).

16

Also before the court is defendant Mann’s motion to amend answer. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff

17

files a response. (ECF No. 10).

18

Plaintiff has filed the instant action in state court three times. The defendant has removed

19

the action each time. On March 31, 2017, Chief Judge Navarro granted plaintiff’s motion to

20

remand. (ECF No. 9 at 23–25). On June 1, 2017, Judge Gordon remanded the case to state court

21

after defendant failed to show cause as to jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9 at 34–35). Notwithstanding

22

these prior orders, defendant filed a third petition for removal.

23

In order for a federal district court to possess diversity jurisdiction, the party asserting

24

jurisdiction must demonstrate that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. See 28

25

U.S.C. § 1332. Even when complete diversity exists amongst the parties, an action cannot be

26

removed by a “local” defendant, i.e. a defendant who is a citizen of the state in which the action is

27

brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 393 F.3d 857, 870 (9th Cir. 2004).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

As Chief Judge Navarro and Judge Gordon explained in their previous orders, the court

2

does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (See ECF No. 9 at 23-25, 34-35).

3

Defendant presents no viable argument for asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 1331. Further, the plaintiff here requests far less than $75,000. Furthermore, the defendant is a

5

citizen of Nevada. Therefore, as has been explained to defendant multiple times, subject matter

6

jurisdiction does not exist on these facts.

7

Defendant is a vexatious litigant. His frivolous petitions for removal have been twice

8

remanded, and instead of respecting the prior orders he chose to file an identical frivolous petition

9

for removal. The court hopes that “there be [sic] no more going back and forth from State court

10

to Federal court.” (ECF No. 8 at 6). Defendant’s conduct appears to be a delay tactic to prevent

11

plaintiff from possession of plaintiff’s property. Any further frivolous removals will result in

12

sanctions.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

remand (ECF No. 9) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to consolidate cases (ECF No. 8) be,
and the same hereby is, DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to amend answer (ECF No. 3) be,
and the same hereby is, DISMISSED as moot.
DATED August 25, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-2-