Gaven Hill v. Kristan Hill-Love
509 F. App'x 605
9th Cir.2013Background
- Hill sued his sister Hill-Love in state court for damages exceeding $100,000 on multiple claims.
- Hill-Love removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court granted Hill-Love's summary judgment due to Hill's failure to meet discovery and witness disclosure deadlines.
- We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment and the denial of Hill's remand motion.
- The propriety of removal is determined by the pleadings, not post-filing events reducing potential recovery.
- Hill failed to comply with pretrial scheduling orders, leaving no admissible evidence to support his claims; res judicata/collateral estoppel defenses were not established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was removal proper based on diversity and amount in controversy? | Hill contends removal was improper after the suit. | Hill-Love argues removal was proper from the pleadings showing exceedance of $75,000. | Removal proper; jurisdiction based on pleadings. |
| Did the district court err in denying remand? | Hill argues remand should have been granted after defects. | Hill-Love maintains removal based on diversity remained valid despite later events. | No error in denying remand. |
| Did summary judgment against Hill lie due to discovery noncompliance? | Hill claims discovery delays were substantially justified or harmless. | Hill failed to comply with scheduling orders and did not show substantial justification or harmlessness. | Yes, summary judgment proper; no admissible evidence. |
| Do res judicata or collateral estoppel apply to Hill's claims? | Hill asserts these doctrines may bar claims. | Hill failed to establish applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel. | No applicability shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2006) (propriety of removal determined from state court pleadings)
- Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997) (post-pleading events do not oust jurisdiction)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (standard for determining jurisdiction based on pleadings)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223 (Cal. 1990) (res judicata/preclusion principles applied)
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297 (Cal. 2002) (collateral estoppel considerations)
- Hoffman v. Construction Protective Servs., 541 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 37 sanctions and evidence standards)