Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-01262-APG-NJK
06-01-2017
JOHN W. MANN, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Defendant.
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Defendant John W. Mann removed this action from Nevada state court. ECF No. 1. However, because it did not appear that this court has subject matter jurisdiction under either diversity or federal question jurisdiction, I ordered Mann to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court.
A defendant may remove a state court case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) only when "the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction." If removal is sought based on diversity of citizenship, the suit must be between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Additionally, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The presence or absence of a federal question is determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under that rule, federal question jurisdiction exists "only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Id.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are "presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Res., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). The "'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Remand is required if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).
Mann has not shown either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. In his response to my Order to Show Cause, Mann argues that this court has jurisdiction under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and that district courts have appellate jurisdiction over cases arising out of justice court. He also argues he cannot get a fair trial in state court.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides, among other things, that the U.S. Constitution and federal law are the "supreme Law of the Land." However, the fact that federal law is the supreme law of the land does not transmute plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon's state law unlawful detainer claim into a federal one. To the extent Mann is referring to Article VI, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution, that provision provides that district courts have appellate jurisdiction from the justice courts. However, the district courts to which that provision refers are the district courts of the State of Nevada, not federal district courts. Finally, Mann has not presented any basis to conclude he will be denied due process in the Nevada state court system.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case is remanded to the state court from which it was removed for all further proceedings. The clerk of the court is instructed to close this case.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2017.
/s/_________
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE