Hurst-Castl v. Sables, LLC

D. Nevada

Hurst-Castl v. Sables, LLC

DecidedJune 17, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00752

StatusUnknown

This text of Hurst-Castl v. Sables, LLC (Hurst-Castl v. Sables, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hurst-Castl v. Sables, LLC, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TRACY LEE HURST-CASTL, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00752-APG-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motions to Remand

5 v. [ECF Nos. 6, 11]

6 SABLES, LLC, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 Tracy Lee Hurst-Castl moves to remand this case to state court for three reasons: 9 (1) Sables, LLC is a Nevada entity and as a forum defendant it cannot remove the case, (2) the 10 amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, and (3) Sables did not timely file a Statement 11 Regarding Removal. ECF Nos. 6, 11. None of these reasons justifies remand. 12 Sables is a Nevada limited liability company. “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of 13 which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 14 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Hurst-Castl does not dispute that Sables’ sole member is a California 15 citizen. Rather, she alleges that Sables conducts its business in Nevada. But “the locations at 16 which partnerships conduct business” are irrelevant to subject-matter jurisdiction. Lincoln Prop. 17 Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 n.1 (2005) (citation omitted). Because Sables is deemed a citizen 18 of California, the forum-defendant rule is not violated. Id. at 84. 19 Hurst-Castl’s lawsuit seeks equitable and declaratory relief to void a foreclosure sale. “In 20 cases seeking injunctive relief from a foreclosure sale, the value of the property at issue is the 21 object of the litigation for the purposes of determining the amount in controversy.” Kehoe v. 22 Aurora Loan Servs. LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00256-RCJ, 2010 WL 4286331, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 23 1/2010). Here, the subject property sold for nearly $1 million, so this court’s $75,000 2|| jurisdictional minimum is satisfied and I can exercise diversity jurisdiction over the case. 3 Finally, Hurst-Castl contends that remand is required because Sables did not timely file its Statement Regarding Removal. ECF No. 11 at 3. But that statement is not jurisdictional, so a late filing does not justify remand. 6 I THEREFORE ORDER that the motions to remand (ECF Nos. 6, 11) are denied. 7 DATED this 17th day of June, 2025. 8 G=— 7 ANDREW P.GORDON sits 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TRACY LEE HURST-CASTL, Case No.: 2:25-cv-00752-APG-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motions to Remand

5 v. [ECF Nos. 6, 11]

6 SABLES, LLC, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 Tracy Lee Hurst-Castl moves to remand this case to state court for three reasons: 9 (1) Sables, LLC is a Nevada entity and as a forum defendant it cannot remove the case, (2) the 10 amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, and (3) Sables did not timely file a Statement 11 Regarding Removal. ECF Nos. 6, 11. None of these reasons justifies remand. 12 Sables is a Nevada limited liability company. “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of 13 which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 14 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Hurst-Castl does not dispute that Sables’ sole member is a California 15 citizen. Rather, she alleges that Sables conducts its business in Nevada. But “the locations at 16 which partnerships conduct business” are irrelevant to subject-matter jurisdiction. Lincoln Prop. 17 Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 84 n.1 (2005) (citation omitted). Because Sables is deemed a citizen 18 of California, the forum-defendant rule is not violated. Id. at 84. 19 Hurst-Castl’s lawsuit seeks equitable and declaratory relief to void a foreclosure sale. “In 20 cases seeking injunctive relief from a foreclosure sale, the value of the property at issue is the 21 object of the litigation for the purposes of determining the amount in controversy.” Kehoe v. 22 Aurora Loan Servs. LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00256-RCJ, 2010 WL 4286331, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 23 1/2010). Here, the subject property sold for nearly $1 million, so this court’s $75,000 2|| jurisdictional minimum is satisfied and I can exercise diversity jurisdiction over the case. 3 Finally, Hurst-Castl contends that remand is required because Sables did not timely file its Statement Regarding Removal. ECF No. 11 at 3. But that statement is not jurisdictional, so a late filing does not justify remand. 6 I THEREFORE ORDER that the motions to remand (ECF Nos. 6, 11) are denied. 7 DATED this 17th day of June, 2025. 8 G=— 7 ANDREW P.GORDON sits 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hurst-Castl v. Sables, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurst-castl-v-sables-llc-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack