SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Matthew Nixon's motion to remand Tuesday, holding that Vegas.com cannot flip its position on federal jurisdiction after previously using that same defense to dismiss Nixon's equitable claims in a prior case.
The case marks what Breyer called "a removal redux—with a twist." In Nixon I, Vegas.com removed the action and successfully argued the court lacked equitable jurisdiction over claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. The court agreed and dismissed those claims. Nixon refiled in state court. Vegas.com removed again—but this time sought to waive the equitable jurisdiction defense to keep the case in federal court.
Breyer rejected both prongs of Vegas.com's argument. First, the court held it lacked equitable jurisdiction because Nixon did not allege he lacked an adequate remedy at law—a requirement for federal equitable relief following the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Ruiz v. Bradford Exch., Ltd. Second, judicial estoppel barred Vegas.com from abandoning its prior defense.
"Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage by asserting one position, and then later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent position," Breyer wrote, citing Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
The court found all three judicial estoppel factors met: Vegas.com's position was clearly inconsistent with its Nixon I stance; the court accepted that earlier position and dismissed the equitable claims based on it; and allowing the flip would give Vegas.com an unfair advantage while imposing additional litigation burden on Nixon.
"Such litigation tactics interfere with 'the orderly administration of justice,'" Breyer wrote.
Vegas.com argued the complaint here differs materially from Nixon I because it lacks a Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim. Breyer called that unavailing, noting the equitable jurisdiction analysis turns on whether Nixon alleged an inadequate legal remedy—not the specific claims asserted.
The court applied the presumption against removal and remanded the case to state court.