Amos v. Extra Space Management, Inc.

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA Adam Amos, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01696-CDS-NJK

Plaintiffs Order Remanding Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Closing Case v.

Extra Space Management, Inc.,

Defendant

This negligence case arises from a fire that started at defendant Extra Space Management’s storage facility. See Compl., ECF No. 2-3. After reviewing Extra Space’s notice of removal, asserting diversity jurisdiction, United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe issued an order to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Order, ECF No. 5. Therein she noted that, in a class action not removed under the Class Action Fairness Act, at least one named plaintiff in the class must satisfy the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement. Id. (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549 (2005); Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 398 (9th Cir. 2010)). She further stated that Extra Space’s “removal papers do not attempt to show that any named plaintiff has a claim exceeding $75,000” and instead, Extra Space “attempts to aggregate the amount in controversy.” Id. Extra Space filed a timely response to the show-cause order conceding that aggregation is inappropriate and, therefore, remand is proper. Resp., ECF No. 7. As there is no valid basis for removal or for diversity jurisdiction, this matter must be remanded to state court.

1 Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order to show cause [ECF No. 5] is discharged. 3 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to remand thiseaction, Case No. A-25-918437-C, to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 27, nye this case. 5 Dated: September 26, 2025 LZ 6 nye States District Judge ll