City of Coffman Cove v. Beilgard
1:25-cv-00002
D. AlaskaApr 14, 2025Background
- Defendants Beilgard and McCurdy, self-represented, attempted to remove a state court case (City of Coffman Cove v. Kingco, LLC) to federal court.
- Their notice of removal was filed more than two years after they first appeared in the original state court action, which is well beyond the statutory deadline.
- Defendants failed to pay the required federal court filing fee when submitting the notice of removal.
- The state court had already dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims, denied reconsideration, entered final judgment, and closed the case before the federal filing.
- In federal court, defendants sought damages based on the same theories already rejected and appeared to seek review of the adverse state court judgment.
- The federal district court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that remand to state court would be futile because the state case was closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the removal to federal court timely and procedurally proper? | Not directly addressed | Asserted removal under federal rules | No, removal was untimely and deficient |
| Did the court have original subject matter jurisdiction? | Not directly addressed | Claimed claims arose under federal law | No, no independent basis for jurisdiction |
| Can a federal court review or overturn a state court judgment? | Not directly addressed | Sought review of state outcome | No, barred by Rooker-Feldman doctrine |
| Should the federal court remand or dismiss? | Not directly addressed | Implied remand preferable | Dismissal with prejudice was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of state jurisdiction; burden is on removing party to show removal is proper)
- Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1979) (removal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal district court review of state court judgments)