Ford, et al. v. Robison et al.

Filing 22

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Fifth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Nye. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/30/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet sent to Fifth Judicial District Court - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

ROBERT FORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

6
7
8

NATHAN ROBISON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02720-GMN-PAL
ORDER

9
10

On October 26, 2017, Defendant Robison Engineering Company, Inc. and Defendant

11

Nathan Robison (collectively “Defendants”) removed the instant case from the Fifth Judicial

12

District Court for the State of Nevada, Nye County. Upon review of the Petition for Removal,

13

the Court was not convinced that the jurisdictional requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

14

and 1441(a) were satisfied and, accordingly, ordered Defendant to show cause why the Court

15

should not remand this action to state court. (See Min. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 9).

16

Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Defendants filed a brief arguing that

17

“federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims is proper based on the face of the

18

Complaint.” (Brief 10:2–3, ECF No. 10). Defendants claim that “Plaintiffs rely exclusively on

19

federal law for the legal duties upon which they base each of their claims directed at the

20

Robison Defendants and ultimately challenge the findings and ability of the [Bureau of Land

21

Management (“BLM”)] to levy a fine against Ford for his willful and destructive trespass to

22

federal public lands.” (Id. 10:3–6).

23

The Court finds that the claims at issue do not confer jurisdiction. The Complaint cites

24

federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 3571 et seq., and 43 U.S.C. § 1733 (a) and (g),

25

and, the causes of action are for state law claims of equitable indemnity and breach of contract.
(See Compl., Ex. 1 to Pet. For Removal, ECF No. 1). The alleged state law claims require
Page 1 of 2

1

supplemental jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Further, Defendants only claim that the

2

BLM “may be a necessary party.” (Brief 9:26–28). There is no substantial federal question at

3

issue or in dispute. Therefore, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the Court has subject

4

matter jurisdiction.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Fifth Judicial

7

District Court for the State of Nevada, County of Nye.

8

30
DATED this _____ day of August, 2018.

9
10
11

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

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2