Richland Holdings Inc. v. Darby
2:19-cv-00634
D. Nev.Jun 10, 2019Background
- Richland Holdings (assignee of a medical-services debt originally owed to Dr. Bernard Ong) sued Marlo Dalby in Las Vegas Justice Court on Jan 4, 2019 for breach of contract and monies due.
- Dalby (pro se) moved in LVJC to dismiss raising lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, standing, and fraud; LVJC denied the motion.
- Dalby removed the case to federal court on Apr 12, 2019, alleging Richland’s claim implicated the FDCPA.
- Richland moved to remand, arguing the complaint asserts only state-law contract claims and removal was improper and untimely.
- The district court reviewed federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule and the 30-day removal timing rule.
- The court granted remand, finding no federal-question jurisdiction and, alternatively, that removal was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Complaint pleads only state-law breach and monies due claims | Removal proper because defendant alleges FDCPA violations as federal issue | No federal-question jurisdiction; removal improper (well-pleaded complaint rule) |
| Whether removal was timely | Removal untimely; 30-day clock began on receipt of complaint/summons | 30-day clock began when LVJC denied motion to dismiss | Untimely: defendant received complaint Feb 1 and removed Apr 12, beyond 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (inartfully pled pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
- Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362 (pro se litigant not to be treated more favorably than represented parties)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (presumption against removal; defendant bears burden to show removal proper)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (removal authorized only where original federal jurisdiction exists; defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (state claims that require resolution of substantial federal issue as basis for removal)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (standards for substantial federal question and preemption)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (complete preemption doctrine)
- Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689 (30-day removal clock starts when a document affirmatively reveals removability)
- Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136 (defendant not required to investigate beyond initial pleadings to trigger 30-day removal period)