Leitch v. campbell

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00640
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 5 Pannee Leitch McMackin, Case No. 2:23-cv-00640-CDS-NJK

6 Plaintiff

Order Remanding Case to State Court and 7 v. Denying as Moot Motion for Leave to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis 8 Scott Campbell,

[ECF No. 1] 9 Defendant

10 11 Pro se defendant Scott Campbell seeks to remove this landlord-tenant dispute from state 12 court to this court. ECF No. 1-1. He also moves for leave to proceed in this case in forma 13 pauperis. ECF No. 1. Campbell asserts that his counterclaims for violation of the Fair Debt 14 Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692), the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601), and the 15 Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681) are proper bases on which to remove this case to 16 federal court. ECF No. 1-1 at 4. Although he does not attach the state-court complaint to his 17 filings, his statement of facts indicates that the underlying claims involve plaintiff Pannee Leitch 18 McMackin’s eviction of Campbell from a property. Id. at 3. Campbell maintains that removal is 19 proper “so that [his] federal constitutional and statutory claims can be addressed[.]” Id. And he 20 states that “[v]enue is proper in this [c]ourt . . . because the U.S. District Court for the Central 21 District of Nevada is the federal judicial district embracing the Superior Court of the State of 22 California for the County of Los Angeles where the underlying proceedings were originally 23 filed.”1 Id. at 2. 24 25

26 1 I note that there is only one federal district court in Nevada: the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada. There is no “central district” federal court in Nevada. 1 Counterclaims sounding in federal law cannot serve as independent bases for removal. 2 “For both removal and original jurisdiction, the federal question must be presented by the 3 plaintiff’s complaint as it stands at the time of removal.” Redev. Agency of City of San Bernardino v. 4 Alvarez, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor 5 Co., 145 F.3d 320, 327 (5th Cir. 1998)). “Removal, therefore, cannot be based on a counterclaim or 6 cross-claim raising a federal question.” Id. (citing Metro Ford Truck Sales, 145 F.3d at 320). “This 7 principle applies, regardless of whether that counterclaim or cross-claim is filed in state or 8 federal court; to hold otherwise would allow defendants to determine the removability of a 9 case.” Id. (citing Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 281 (1918)). So because the 10 underlying dispute involves issues of state law only, this court does not have subject-matter 11 jurisdiction over the case. 12 Conclusion 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is remanded to the state court where it 14 was initially filed. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Campbell’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 18 DATED: April 26, 2023 19 _________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26