Sean Christopher Mascarenhas v. Caesars Palace LLC, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada

Sean Christopher Mascarenhas v. Caesars Palace LLC, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 SEAN CHRISTOPHER MASCARENHAS, Case No.: 2:25-cv-02051-APG-MDC

4 Plaintiff Order Remanding Case to State Court

5 v. [ECF No. 8]

6 CAESARS PALACE LLC, et al.,

7 Defendants 8

9 Caesars Palace removed this case from state court based on federal question jurisdiction 10 because three causes of action in the Complaint assert claims under federal law. ECF No. 1-2 at 11 7-9. Sean Mascarenhas moves to remand, contending that “[a]lthough the Complaint references 12 several federal civil-rights statutes, those references do not form essential elements of the 13 claims.” ECF No. 8 at 4 (emphasis in original). Mascarenhas is incorrect because the Complaint 14 expressly bases three claims on federal law. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-2 at 8 (defendants “unlawfully 15 denied Plaintiff service, detained him without cause, and ejected him from the premises in 16 violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a)”); at 9 (defendants deprived “Plaintiff of his liberty and civil 17 rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983”). Removal was proper because Mascarenhas’ complaint 18 stated on its face three claims based on federal statutes. 19 However, Mascarenhas has filed an amended complaint that deletes the three federal 20 claims. ECF No. 9. An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and becomes the 21 operative one. Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger,

604 U.S. 22, 30

(2025). “If (as here) 22 the plaintiff eliminates the federal-law claims that enabled removal, leaving only state-law 23 claims behind, the court’s power to decide the dispute dissolves. With the loss of federal- 1} question jurisdiction, the court loses as well its supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.” Because only state-law claims remain, I must remand the case to state court. 3 I THEREFORE ORDER that this case is remanded to the state court from which it was removed for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. 5 DATED this 10th day of December, 2025. 6 ANDREW P. GORDON 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Reference

Status
Unknown