Szanto et al v. Szanto

Filing 15

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)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

VICTOR SZANTO, et al.,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 3:17-cv-00153-MMD-WGC
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
PETER SZANTO,
Defendant.

13

This case comes before this Court through Defendant Peter Szanto’s petition for

14

removal (“Petition”). (ECF No. 1.) The notice attaches two documents—a civil cover sheet

15

and a Temporary Order for Protection Against Domestic Violence (“Protective Order”).

16

(ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2.) The Court issued an Order for Defendant to show cause as to why

17

this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.)

18

Defendant has responded to the Court’s Order (“Response”). (ECF No. 14.)

19

Defendant removed the action on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF No. 1.)

20

Accordingly, it is Defendant’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence

21

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.,

22

506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). The Petition asserts the amount of controversy based

23

on damages alleged in connection with other cases. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) The Protective

24

Order seeks injunctive relief, not damages. (ECF No. 1-2.) In his Response, Defendant

25

discussed two other cases that are apparently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of

26

Appeals and contends that regardless of the outcome, these cases have not been

27

decided on the merits. (ECF No. 14 at 1-2.) Defendant further argues that the Protective

28

Order is an attempt to interfere and prohibit continued litigation in Nevada’s courts,

1

suggesting that the harm to Defendant is the loss resulting from his inability to recover in

2

these other two cases and which loss exceeds the amount in controversy. (Id. at 6-8.)

3

However, subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on the affirmative claim in the

4

complaint, not on any actual or anticipated defense. See Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556

5

U.S. 49, 59 (2009). Even accepting that the Protective Order will harm Defendant as he

6

claims, such harm cannot be a basis for the amount in controversy.

7
8
9

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.

10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2