Piatek et al v. Piatek

Filing 24

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Remand, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RENATA ANNA PIATEK, and unmarried individual, Defendant.
WALENTYNA PIATEK and EUGENIUSZ ANTONI PIATEK, wife and husband; and STANISLA PIATEK, an unmarried individual, Plaintiff,

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Case No. C08-05667 RBL ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

v.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for remand to Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County [Dkt. #12]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. I. Background This matter is the second case before the Court concerning ownership interest in certain real

25 26 27 28 property located in Buckley, Washington (Buckley Property). Both matters were removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County. The first action, Renata Piatek v. Magdalena Siudy Cause No. CV 07-05132 RBL, resulted in Renata Piatek (Renata) receiving sole ownership interest in the
ORDER Page - 1

1 2 3

Buckley Property. Renata brought suit against her then husband's girlfriend, Magdalena Siudy (Ms. Siudy), after the property was transferred to Ms. Siudy pending divorce proceedings in Poland [Id., Dkt. #56]. Renata's estranged husband, Stanislaw Piatek (Stan), appeared as the sole defense witness in the

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
#14]. ORDER Page - 2
1

first case but he was not formally named as a defendant. This matter is Stan's second attempt to persuade the courts of his right to title of the Buckley Property. While Stan appeared as a witness in the first action, none of the current Plaintiffs were formally named as Defendants in that action. Stan is a dual citizen of both Poland and the United States [Dkt. #14]1, and is domiciled in Poland [Dkt. #20]. Renata is a citizen of the United States [Dkt. #13, Ex. B.]. While the ultimate issue of title may easily be dealt with based on Defendant's lis pendens argument, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to make that determination. II. Discussion When a case is removed to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, complete diversity is determined at the time notice for removal is filed. Spencer v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 393 F.3d 867, 871 (9th Cir. 2004). A federal court must remand the case if there is any defect which causes federal jurisdiction to fail, including the subsequent discovery that a lack of complete diversity existed at the time of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A United States citizen, domiciled abroad, is not a "citizen of a State" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and as such that person cannot sue or be sued in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1995); Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 68-69 (2nd Cir. 1990) (holding that a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad cannot be diverse from any opposing party). Domicile is the place where an individual resides with the intent to remain. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Stan's domicile is undisputed by the parties. He currently lives in Poland, he signed the complaint

The remaining Plaintiffs, Walentyna Piatek and Eugeniusz Antoni Piatek, are Polish citizens residing in Poland [Dkt.

1 2 3

instigating this action in Poland, and he is in all likelihood currently in Poland at this time [Dkt. #1; 17; 20]. Because Stan is an American citizen domiciled abroad, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity and as such must remand these proceedings.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated this 4th day of February, 2009. matter is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County. IT IS SO ORDERED. III. Conclusion The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on Stan's dual citizenship status and his domiciliary status abroad. Based on that status he cannot be diverse from any party before the Court and as such complete diversity is necessarily lacking. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED, and this

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER Page - 3