Cluster 783112 (2003)

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Section 1442 . . . merely allows the federal government to remove a case to federal district court; it does not determine whether the court has jurisdiction to hear it.”). 32 KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT V.

When applying the doctrine, courts should not “exalt form over necessity,” but instead should “look behind the form of the action to the gravamen of a complaint and the nature of the right sued on.” State Eng’r, 339 F.3d at 810 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 811 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 174 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 1999).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Palmer v. Texas, 212 U.S. 118, 125 (1909)).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If there are specific jurisdictional bars elsewhere that prevent the district court from asserting jurisdiction, [§ 1442] cannot overcome the jurisdictional defect.”).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 811 (9th Cir. 2003) (quot- ing Penn Gen., 294 U.S. at 195 ); Goncalves ex rel.

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the “ancient and oft- repeated . . . doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction—that when a court of competent jurisdiction has obtained possession, custody, or control of particular property, that possession may not be disturbed by any other court” (quoting 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3631, at 8 (3d ed. 1998))). 13 Here, the district court took constructive control of the Tehan…

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the “ancient and oft- repeated . . . doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction—that when a court of competent jurisdiction has obtained possession, custody, or control of particular property, that possession may not be disturbed by any other court” (quoting 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3631, at 8 (3d ed. 1998))). 12 12 There is an exception to prior exclusive jurisdiction that i…

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous.

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous.

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous.

See Chapman, 651 F.3d at 1041 ; State Engineer, 339 F.3d at 807-08, 814; In re Trust Created by Hill, 728 F.Supp. at 567-68 .

(Doc. 11 at 4.) 19 When assessing whether an action is properly described as in rem or in personam, 20 the Court must “look behind the form of the action to the gravamen of a complaint and the 21 nature of the right sued on.” State Eng’r of Nev., 339 F.3d at 810 (quotation and citation 22 omitted).

Sho- shone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 812 (9th Cir. 2003).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine “is no mere discretionary abstention rule.

“The statute merely allows the federal government to remove a case to federal district court; it does not determine whether the court has jurisdiction to hear it.” State Engineer of State of Nevada v. South Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also United States 26 27 The Court grants Defendants’ “Request for Judicial Notice in Support of 5 28 Defendants’ February 18, 2022 Filings,” (Doc. 91), which Plaintiffs did not oppose (Doc. 109). -5- Case 4:19-cv-00407-SHR Document 137 Filed 09/05/23 Page 6 of 46 1 v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, 866 F.2d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The purpose of the 2 rule is the maintenance of comity between courts; such harmony is…

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 6 Case 2:22-cv-05986-RGK-MAA Document 34 Filed 10/31/22 Page4of6 Page ID #:264 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 22-cv-05986-RGK-MAA Date 10/31/2022 Title Graham et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. 339 F.3d 804, 811 (9th Cir. 2003).

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing the doctrine as a “mandatory jurisdictional limitation”); Stemcor USA, Inc. v. Am.

An action is quasi in rem when it is 28 brought “against the defendant[s] personally” but “the [parties'] 1 interest[s] in the property ... serve[ ] as the basis of the 2 jurisdiction.” State Eng'r, 339 F.3d at 811 (alterations in 3 original).

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous.

Shoshone Indians, 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 814 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Norfolk, 464 U.S. at 35–36, 104 S. Ct. at 307, 78 L.

See 339 F.3d at 807-08.

See 24 generally 16 U.S.C. § 410mm. 8 The Court’s vacated Order remanding this case relied on State Engineer of Nevada v. South Fork Band of the 25 Te-Moak Tribe of the Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, which notes that under the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction, “when a court of competent jurisdiction has obtained possession, custody, or control of particular property, that possession may not be disturbed by any other court.” 339 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 T…

Compare Te-Moak Tribe, 339 F.3d at 814 (a 9 state court that entered a water rights decree has prior exclusive jurisdiction over any 10 proceedings concerning the administration of the decree), with United States v. Alpine Land & 11 Reservoir Co., 174 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2007) (a federal court that entered a water rights decree 12 has prior exclusive jurisdiction over any proceedings concerning the administration of the 13 decree). 14 In contrast, the federal officer removal…

See, e.g., State Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe, 339 F.3d 804, 810-11 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding federal court lacked jurisdiction where water rights were under state court’s continuing jurisdiction pursuant to a seventy year old decree); In re Trust Created by Hill, 728 F. Supp. 564, 567-68 (D.

In appeals of decisions affecting federally decreed rights, jurisdiction rests not only on NRS 533.450(1), but also “on the ability of a court of equity to enforce and administer its decrees.” Id.; see State Engineer of NV v. South Fork Band of Te-Moak, 339 F.3d 804, 813-14 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction to affirm the trial court’s abstention ruling in a federal suit to enforce Sixth Judicial District Court Humboldt Decree rights).

In appeals of decisions affecting federally decreed rights, jurisdiction rests not only on NRS 533.450(1), but also "on the ability of a court of equity to enforce and administer its decrees." Id.; see State Engineer of NV. v. South Fork Band of Te-Moak, 339 F.3d 804, 813-14 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction to affirm the trial court's abstention ruling in a federal suit to enforce Sixth Judicial District Court Humboldt Decree rights).