Medesimo Tempo v. Skull Valley Health Care, 2:21-cv-00715

Petitioners (Medesimo Tempo, Holly Jones, Holly Jones Homes) filed a Utah Petition to Nullify Lien under state statutes seeking expedited release of a recorded "Notice of Interest" on Tooele County real property.
Respondents (Skull Valley Health Care, LLC and Skull Valley Health Clinic, LLC) had recorded the encumbrance and refused to release it.
Respondents removed the action to federal court asserting original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging the land is within the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians' ancestral homeland and subject to a U.S.–Goshute treaty (i.e., "Indian Country" / treaty issues).
In opposition to remand, Respondents further argued they are federally contracted / federally qualified health centers (invoking Indian Self-Determination Act and 42 U.S.C. § 254b) and thus effectively federal agencies; they also asserted tribal immunity and other federal statutes might apply.
Petitioners moved to remand for lack of federal jurisdiction. The district court found Respondents failed to carry the removal burden and GRANTED the motion to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331	Petition arises under Utah law only (state-law petition to nullify lien)	The dispute implicates treaties/Indian Country and federal statutes, raising substantial federal issues	No — complaint presents state-law claims; Respondents failed to show a necessarily raised, substantial federal issue
Whether tribal immunity converts the case into a federal question	Tribal immunity is not pleaded; claim is state-law	Tribal immunity would be raised as a defense and is a federal issue	No — a federal defense (tribal immunity) does not create federal-question jurisdiction
Whether Respondents are federal agencies entitling removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346/1442	Not applicable (Petitioners)	Respondents claim federal-contractor / federally qualified status makes them federal agencies	No — Respondents provided no evidence they are U.S. agencies or corporations in which U.S. has proprietary interest; burden not met
Whether Respondents may assert new federal-jurisdiction grounds after removal	Petitioners contend removal notice limited to § 1331; new grounds untimely	Respondents raised §§ 1346/1442 in opposition as alternate bases	Court notes some authority forbids adding new grounds post-removal and in any event Respondents failed to establish these grounds

Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 440 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (well-pleaded complaint rule and federal-question jurisdiction principles)
Karnes v. Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2003) (federal-question jurisdiction standards)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading state law only)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (narrow exception where state claim necessarily raises substantial federal issue)
Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2013) (burden of proof on party invoking federal jurisdiction)
Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838 (1989) (federal defense such as tribal immunity does not convert state tax claims into federal questions)
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts may reject adding new, separate grounds for removal after statutory time limit)