Christensen Law Offices, LLC et al v. Christensen et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING #8 Motion to Remand to State Court, and DENYING #33 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court further Denies, without prejudice #5 Motion to Dismiss #7 Motion to Dismiss and #10 Motion to Stay Case. The Clerk shall REMAND this case back to the Eighth Judicial District. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/28/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, Certified order and docket sheet to 8JD - DRS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICES, LLC,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:21-CV-424 JCM (BNW)

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
ERIC CHRISTENSEN, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is plaintiff Christensen Law Offices, LLC’s (“Christensen

14

Law”) motion to remand. (ECF No. 8, 17). Third-party defendant Government Employees

15

Insurance Company (“GEICO”) responded, (ECF No. 29), to which Christensen Law replied,

16

(ECF No. 38). Christensen Law also moves for attorney fees and costs. (ECF No. 33).

17

The instant action arises from an insurance dispute. (ECF No. 1). GEICO removed this

18

matter from Nevada state court by invoking diversity jurisdiction. (Id.). The parties now dispute

19

whether complete diversity exists here. (ECF No. 17); 28 U.S.C. §1332.

20

This court finds that it does not. (ECF No. 8). “In a case with multiple plaintiffs and

21

multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a

22

single defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire

23

action.”

24

Christensen Law, defendants Elmina Christensen and Eric Christensen, and third-party

25

defendants Winner & Sherrod, LTD. f/k/a Atkin Winner & Sherrod, LTD., and Bruce W. Kelley

26

are all citizens of Nevada for diversity purposes. (ECF No. 1). GEICO is the only party that is

27

not a citizen of Nevada. The parties do not dispute this.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).

Plaintiff

1

GEICO’s arguments regarding fraudulent joinder and “real parties in interest” are

2

unavailing. (ECF No. 29). A non-diverse defendant is a “sham” if the plaintiff could not

3

possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned. See Kruso v. Int’l Tel. & Tel.

4

Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989). In examining this question, all disputed questions of

5

fact are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. “If there is a possibility that a state court would find

6

that the complaint states a cause of action against any of the resident defendants, the federal

7

court must find that the joinder was proper and remand the case to the state court.” Hunter v.

8

Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009).

9

Here, this court finds such possibility, especially in light of Nevada’s less stringent

10

“notice pleading” regime. Hay v. Hay, 678 P.2d 672, 674 (Nev. 1984) (“Nevada . . . courts

11

liberally construe pleadings to place into issue matters which are fairly noticed to the adverse

12

party.”). Plaintiff brought the original suit to establish the debt owed by Eric and Elmina

13

Christensen to Christensen Law. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff appropriately describes how “[t]he

14

purpose of the third-party complaint is to recover all damages flowing from the failures

15

independently, dependently and in concert, to discharge the duties to the Christensens by both

16

GEICO,” Winner & Sherrod, LTD, f/k/a Atkin Winner & Sherrod, LTD., and Bruce W. Kelley.

17

(ECF No. 38). The purported settlement agreement does not indicate that the non-diverse parties

18

are no longer a part of this matter.

19

Having weighed the “rights of the parties” and finding no “objective . . . [of] forum

20

manipulation,” this court also declines to sever GEICO from the non-diverse parties. Greene v.

21

Wyeth, 344 F.Supp.2d 674 (D. Nev. 2004); (ECF No. 7).

22

Although this court finds removal improper, this court declines to grant any requests for

23

sanctions. (ECF No. 33). Given this matter’s procedural posture, GEICO plausibly argued to

24

stay in federal court despite this court’s ultimate finding against complete diversity.

25

remaining motions before this court are denied as moot.

The

26

Accordingly,

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

remand (ECF No. 8) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees (ECF No. 33) be,

1
2

and the same hereby is, DENIED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining pending motions (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 10) be,

4

and the same hereby are, DENIED without prejudice to the parties’ ability to refile them in state

5

court.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall REMAND this case back to the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, and CLOSE this case.
DATED April 28, 2021.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-