The Meadows Owners Association v. Nair

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 2, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01596
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 13

14 THE MEADOWS OWNERS 15 ASSOCIATION, CASE NO. C19-01596-RAJ

16 Plaintiff, ORDER

17 v. 18 JAYAKRISHNAN K. NAIR ; et al., 19

20 Defendants.

22 This matter is before the Court on Interested Party Joyous Investments, LLC’s 23 (“Joyous”) Objections to the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler’s Report and 24 Recommendation. Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff, The Meadows Owners Association (“Plaintiff” or 25 the “Association”), is a non-profit corporation that holds a lien over the property at issue 26 in the underlying action. Dkt. # 1-2 at ¶ 1.1. Plaintiff initially brought this lien

foreclosure action against Defendant Jayakrishnan K. Nair and the other record owners of 1 the property (collectively “Defendants”) in Snohomish County Superior Court on May 2 22, 2017. Dkt. # 1-2 at ¶ 1.2. On October 7, 2019, Defendants removed the action to 3 federal court. Dkt. # 1-1. Defendants also submitted an application to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable Mary Alice Theiler recommended that Defendants’ 5 application be denied. Dkt. # 5. 6 Joyous objects to Judge Theiler’s recommendation, arguing that this action 7 should instead be remanded back to state court. Dkt. # 8. Defendants have not 8 responded to Joyous’ Objection. Joyous’ Objection is DENIED. Dkt. # 6. The Court 9 ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. # 5. This action will proceed only if 10 Defendants pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 11 Separately, the Court has concerns regarding the basis for federal jurisdiction over 12 this action. The Court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any 13 time during an action. Allstate Indem. Co. v. Pacheco, No. 3:14-cv-05366-KLS, 2014 14 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150069, *11 (W.D. Wash. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“If the 15 court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 16 dismiss the action.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it 17 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 18 remanded.”). Absent jurisdiction, any determination on the merits would be void. Watts 19 v. Pickney, 752 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985). A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to 20 cases or controversies that arise under federal laws or are between diverse citizens where 21 the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1332. 22 Although not entirely clear from the Notice of Removal, Defendants appear to 23 argue that removal is appropriate because the Court now has diversity and federal 24 25 question jurisdiction over this action. Dkt. # 1-1. However, Defendants assert almost 26 no facts to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this lien foreclosure action. In addition, it appears that this action was initially brought in May 2017 (Dkt. # 1-2), however, Defendant’s Notice of Removal does not articulate any basis justifying his 1 delay in removing this action as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2 1446(c)(1). 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to show cause as to why this case 4 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court also ORDERS Defendants 5 to show cause as to why removal of this action is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) 6 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). Defendants shall file a written response, not to exceed five 7 (5) pages, no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order. Failure to file a 8 response will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. Joyous’ Motion to 9 Remand is TERMINATED as moot. Dkt. # 8. 10

11 DATED this 2nd day of March, 2020. 12 A 13 14 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 15 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26