Scott Sexton v. Ndex West, Llc
713 F.3d 533
9th Cir.2013Background
- Sextons sued in Nevada state court challenging foreclosure and asserting exclusively Nevada-law claims, while filing a lis pendens to halt foreclosure.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
- District court dismissed the action as to some defendants and expunged the lis pendens, allowing foreclosure to proceed.
- Sextons contend the district court should have remanded sua sponte under the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine or the Colorado River abstention doctrine.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews jurisdiction de novo and treats the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine as a prudential rule rather than a strict jurisdictional bar.
- The court affirms because neither doctrine applies to this removal action, so removal was proper and the dismissal/expungement were appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine requires remand. | Sextons rely on prior exclusive jurisdiction over the res. | Defendants argue removal ends state jurisdiction and prior exclusive jurisdiction does not apply. | No; doctrine inapplicable; removal proper. |
| Whether Colorado River abstention applies due to concurrent state proceedings over the property. | Sextons contend concurrent state proceedings warrant abstention. | Defendants contend no pending concurrent state proceeding involving the same property justifies abstention. | No; no pending concurrent state proceeding; abstention rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2011) (prior exclusive jurisdiction is a prudential rule for abstention)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (establishes factors for abstention in concurrent-state cases)
- State Engineer v. S. Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe, 339 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2003) (explains in rem jurisdiction and comity; prior exclusive jurisdiction clarified)
- One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1985) (treats prior exclusive jurisdiction as a prudential rule of abstention)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 1994) (remand/abstention considerations in concurrent proceedings)
- United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 174 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 1999) (jurisdictional start/end when removal occurs; state court loses control)
- Lusardi v. Washington St. Corp., 976 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1992) (first Colorado River factor dispositive when pending state proceedings exist)
- Penn Gen. Cas. Co. v. Pennsylvania ex rel. Schnader, 294 U.S. 189 (1935) (early support for comity and jurisdictional concepts as rule-based)