Volkar v. American Transportation Systems, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01436
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Cynthia Volkar, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01436-CDS-DJA

5 Plaintiffs Order Remanding Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Closing Case 6 v.

7 American Transportation Systems, Inc., [ECF No. 9, 12] 8 Defendants

9 10 This case arises from the untimely death of Jeffrey Volkar, who passed away when a tour 11 bus failed and stranded its passengers in extreme heat. As noted in the order to show cause, 12 Volkar’s estate and his heirs filed suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, 13 Nevada, alleging ten state law claims (see Am. compl., ECF No. 1-2), and defendant Sightseeing 14 Tours Unlimited of Nevada, LLC d/b/a Gray Line Las Vegas removed the action to this court 15 asserting that removal is appropriate because the amended complaint cites two sections from 16 the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) (see ECF No. 1-2). However, a review of the amended 17 complaint reveals the plaintiffs have not raised a federal claim. See generally ECF No. 1. So the 18 court issued an order to show cause requiring Sightseeing Tours to show cause why this action 19 should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by September 15, 2025. Order, 20 ECF No. 12 at 3. 21 Sightseeing Tours filed a timely response to the show-cause order on September 15, 2025. 22 Resp., ECF No. 18. However, while timely filed, the response did not explain: (1) how this court 23 has federal jurisdiction over this action, (2) how federal question jurisdiction attaches to the 24 plaintiffs’ claims, or (3) how federal issue is even implicated in the complaint by the mere 25 citation to C.F.R.s. Rather, the defendant agrees that there is no private right of action for the 26 C.F.R.s relied upon in the complaint and the petition for removal, while maintaining that this 1/ court should first decide their pending motion to dismiss in their favor, at which time remand would be proper. See id. at 2. This is improper because, as the removing party, Sightseeing Tours is required to demonstrate removal was proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). They fail to meet that burden here. Indeed, they admit there is no subject matter jurisdiction, and that the C.F.R.s do not convey a private right of action, which made removal improper from the start. Consequently, this action is remanded for lack of subject matter 7|| jurisdiction. See Polo v. Innoventions Int’l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1196-98 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that 8|| 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires remand to state court “[i]f at any time before final judgment it 9} appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction....”). 10 Conclusion 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that is action is remanded to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 5, Case No. A-25-921631-C. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sightseeing Tour’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 9] is 14|| denied without prejudice. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the order to show cause [ECF No. 12] is discharged. 16 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close this oe □□ 17 Dated: September 18, 2025 f /

vate District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26