Tako LLC v. Colvin

D. Nevada

Tako LLC v. Colvin

DecidedNovember 2, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-01837

StatusUnknown

This text of Tako LLC v. Colvin (Tako LLC v. Colvin) 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

Tako LLC v. Colvin, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA TAKO LLC, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01837-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Remanded for Lack of 5} v. Subject Matter Jurisdiction PARNELL COLVIN, 7 Defendant 8 9 Defendant Parnell Colvin removed this action from state court based on federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Under 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Colvin 12}|asserts federal question jurisdiction exists because plaintiff Tako LLC violated his federal constitutional rights. However, Colvin’s federal defenses or counterclaims cannot create federal 14]| question jurisdiction for removal. See Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (stating that a counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction); Hall vy. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating “the existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction” (quotation omitted)). 19 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Parnell Colvin shall show cause why this action should not be removed to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by 21|| November 16, 2022 will result in remand. 22 DATED this 2nd day of November, 2022. Z 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 TAKO LLC, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01837-APG-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Remanded for Lack of 5} v. Subject Matter Jurisdiction PARNELL COLVIN, 7 Defendant 8 9 Defendant Parnell Colvin removed this action from state court based on federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Under 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Colvin 12}|asserts federal question jurisdiction exists because plaintiff Tako LLC violated his federal constitutional rights. However, Colvin’s federal defenses or counterclaims cannot create federal 14]| question jurisdiction for removal. See Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (stating that a counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction); Hall vy. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating “the existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction” (quotation omitted)). 19 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Parnell Colvin shall show cause why this action should not be removed to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond by 21|| November 16, 2022 will result in remand. 22 DATED this 2nd day of November, 2022. Z 23 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tako LLC v. Colvin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tako-llc-v-colvin-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack