1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Kevin James Wiltz, Case No.: 2:21-cv-00569-JAD-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Remanding Divorce Action Back to 5 v. State Court & Closing Case

6 Kristin Lynn Wiltz,

7 Defendant

8 Kristin Lynn Wiltz removed her husband’s complaint for divorce from Nevada state 9 family court to this federal court, claiming that this court has “[o]riginal [j]urisdiction under 28

, and is [a case that] may be removed to this court by defendant pursuant to the 11 provisions of

(b) in that it arises under a treaty of the United States, commonly 12 referred to as Treaty of Greenville.”1 After reviewing that filing, this court ordered Mrs. Wiltz to 13 show cause in writing by June 18, 2021, why this marriage-dissolution action should not be 14 remanded back to state court for improper removal and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.2 She 15 was warned that her failure to show such cause by the court-ordered deadline would result in this 16 case being remanded without further prior notice.3 That deadline passed without response or a 17 request to extend the deadline to file one. 18

(a) authorizes defendants to remove to federal court “any civil action 19 brought in a State court of which the [U.S. District Courts] have original jurisdiction . . . .” But 20 “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”4 So a defendant seeking removal jurisdiction 21 1 ECF No. 1-1 at 1. 22 2 ECF No. 13. 23 3

4 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). 1|| “always have the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”> This is a heavy burden to ca 2\| because there is a “strong presumption against removal jurisdiction[,]” the removal statute is “strictly construe[d] against removal jurisdiction[,]” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected All if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”® Because Mrs. Wiltz has 5|| failed to carry her burden to demonstrate that removal jurisdiction is proper, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND this case back to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Case No. D-19-592576-D, 8|| Department C, and CLOSE THIS CASE. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions [ECF Nos. 10, 11, 14, 15, 16] DENIED as moot. 1] Dated: June 22, 2021

U.S. District Fudge Jennifer A. Dorsey 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 6