Bijan Laghaei v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIJAN LAGHAEI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17572
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00307-MMD-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted: December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Bijan Laghaei appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging various state law claims concerning the foreclosure of his home.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
FILED
DEC 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir.
2002), and we vacate and remand.
We reject Laghaei’s contention that defendants waived their right to remove
this action to federal court by first filing an unlawful detainer action in Nevada
state court. Laghaei has waived the alleged removal defect by failing to file a
motion to remand within 30 days of defendants’ filing their notice of removal. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other
than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing
of the notice of removal . . . .”).
However, during the pendency of this appeal the Nevada Supreme Court
issued its decision in Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 302 P.3d 1103
(Nev. 2013), holding that unlawful detainer and quiet title proceedings are in
rem or quasi in rem in nature. See id. at 1108. “The prior exclusive jurisdiction
doctrine holds that when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a
second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res.” Chapman v.
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
judgment dismissing Laghaei’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and remand
to the district court to determine if Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporations’s
12-17572 2

-- 2 of 3 --

unlawful detainer action remains pending in Nevada state court, and if so, whether
the primary exclusive jurisdiction doctrine applies.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
12-17572 3

-- 3 of 3 --