Muniz Luz v. Pawelczuk

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 3, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01671
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 ISIS MUNIZ LUZ, Case No. 2:21-CV-1671 JCM (NJK)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 SEBASTIAN PAWELCZUK,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is the matter of Muniz Luz v. Pawelczuk, case number 2:21-cv- 14 01671-JCM-NJK. 15 I. Background 16 This personal injury matter arises out of an alleged domestic violence incident involving 17 plaintiff Isis Muniz Luz (“Isis”) and defendant Sebastian Pawelczuk (“Sebastian”). Beginning 18 on or about August 5, 2021, Isis and Sebastian—both Canadian citizens—were staying in a hotel 19 room at Harrah’s Las Vegas Hotel and Casino. (ECF No. 1-2 at 3). Isis alleges that on or about 20 August 7, 2021, Sebastian beat Isis severely, causing her injury. (Id. at 4). Isis filed a personal 21 injury action against Sebastian in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada on 22 August 11, 2021. (Id.). Sebastian removed to this court on September 10, 2021. (ECF No. 1). 23 Sebastian now moves this court to dismiss this matter or, in the alternative, to transfer 24 venue to Canada. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). Consistent with the following, this motion is DENIED as 25 moot and this matter is REMANDED because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 26 II. Legal Standard 27 As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, federal subject matter jurisdiction 28 must exist at the time an action is commenced. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. 1 California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Because subject 2 matter jurisdiction goes to the power of the court to hear a case, a district court may sua sponte 3 raise the issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss a case if no subject matter 4 jurisdiction exists. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h). 5 “[E]ven if the question of subject matter jurisdiction is not fully adjudicated or addressed 6 by the parties, ‘it is axiomatic that this court has a special obligation to satisfy itself of its own 7 jurisdiction . . . .’” Mallard Auto. Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 2d 949, 952–53 (D.

8 Nev. 2004) (citing United States v. Touby, 909 F.2d 759, 763 (3d Cir. 1990)). This is also true 9 for matters removed to a district court from a state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (“If at any time 10 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 11 shall be remanded.”). 12 III. Discussion 13 In his petition for removal, Sebastian argues that removal is proper because this court has 14 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (ECF No. 1). According to Sebastian, this civil action is 15 between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. (Id.). However, Sebastian 16 also claims that both he and Isis are a citizens of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (Id.). Nevertheless, 17 Sebastian argues that “subject matter jurisdiction in this Court is proper based on the fact that 18 [Sebastian] does business in this jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 1). 19 Sebastian mistakenly conflates subject matter jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction. 20 That this matter arises out of conduct occurring in Nevada and involves a party who may have 21 minimum contacts with Nevada does not confer this court with subject matter jurisdiction. 22 Sebastian also misunderstands the diversity jurisdiction requirements of 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1332(a). For a district court to have diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties 24 must be completely diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00, exclusive of 25 interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 26 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 Typically, parties are completely diverse if they are citizens of different states. A person 28 is a citizen of the state in which they are domiciled; a person is domiciled where they reside with 1 | the intention to remain indefinitely, or to which they intend to return. Kanter vy. Warner-Lambert 2| Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the court looks to an individual’s citizenship at the time the lawsuit was filed. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 4| (9th Cir. 1986). 5 Here, neither Isis or Sebastian is alleged to have been a dual citizen or a legal permanent 6) resident of the United States, nor did either of them reside in the United States with the intent to 7 | remain indefinitely at the time this lawsuit was filed.! Instead, this lawsuit commenced as a 8 | personal injury suit between two Canadian citizens. Contrary to Sebastian’s argument, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 does not allow district courts to exercise diversity jurisdiction over two residents of the same foreign country. 11 Therefore, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and this matter was 12 | improperly removed. Consequently, the court REMANDS this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1447. IV. Conclusion 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this matter be, and the 16 | same hereby is, REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada. 17 All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. 18 DATED January 3, 2022. 19 Bette ©. Atala 0 UNITER STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 00 ' Tsis alleges that she has established residency in Miami, Florida (ECF No. 9 at 3), but 28 | this does not retroactively apply to her citizenship status at the time this action commenced. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 858 F.2d at 1380. es C. Mahan District Judge -3-