Szanto et al v. Szanto
ORDER remanding case; directing Clerk to close case. (Certified copies of this order and docket sheet sent to Tahoe Township Justice Court.) Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
VICTOR SZANTO, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00153-MMD-WGC
This case comes before this Court through Defendant Peter Szanto’s petition for
removal (“Petition”). (ECF No. 1.) The notice attaches two documents—a civil cover sheet
and a Temporary Order for Protection Against Domestic Violence (“Protective Order”).
(ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2.) The Court issued an Order for Defendant to show cause as to why
this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.)
Defendant has responded to the Court’s Order (“Response”). (ECF No. 14.)
Defendant removed the action on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1.)
Accordingly, it is Defendant’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.,
506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). The Petition asserts the amount of controversy based
on damages alleged in connection with other cases. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) The Protective
Order seeks injunctive relief, not damages. (ECF No. 1-2.) In his Response, Defendant
discussed two other cases that are apparently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and contends that regardless of the outcome, these cases have not been
decided on the merits. (ECF No. 14 at 1-2.) Defendant further argues that the Protective
Order is an attempt to interfere and prohibit continued litigation in Nevada’s courts,
suggesting that the harm to Defendant is the loss resulting from his inability to recover in
these other two cases and which loss exceeds the amount in controversy. (Id. at 6-8.)
However, subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on the affirmative claim in the
complaint, not on any actual or anticipated defense. See Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556
U.S. 49, 59 (2009). Even accepting that the Protective Order will harm Defendant as he
claims, such harm cannot be a basis for the amount in controversy.
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This case is therefore remanded. The
Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 19th day of April 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?