Opinion
21-16230
10-18-2022
REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL, INC., agent of Republic Services, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. YOUSIF H. HALLOUM; IMAN Y. HALLOUM, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022.[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02003-GMN-NJK, Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Yousif H. Halloum and Iman Y. Halloum appeal pro se from the district court's judgment in an action filed against them regarding allegedly unpaid trash collection fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, 863 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (existence of subject matter jurisdiction); Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012) (denial of a motion to remand). We vacate and remand.
Following the Halloums' removal of this action from state court, the district court sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and denied as moot plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court. While we agree with the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this removed action, see Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (a counterclaim does not establish federal question jurisdiction), the district court was obligated to remand the action to state court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ("If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded."); Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Section 1447(c) is mandatory, not discretionary."). We therefore vacate the district court's judgment and instruct the district court to remand the action to state court.
We reject the Halloums' contentions regarding the magistrate judge's jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and that they were entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
The Halloums' request that this court issue a writ of mandamus or transfer the case, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).