Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Shaver v. Whittier Condominiums Homeowners Association
David Shaver appealed the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of his lawsuit for lack of subject–matter jurisdiction. He also challenged certain procedural orders. Exercising jurisdiction, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, except it remanded for further proceedings on Shaver’s motion to seal certain materials.
According to the opinion, this case concerned the aftermath of a fire at the Whittier Condominiums where Shaver lived in Boulder. In his complaint, Shaver alleged a police officer ordered him to evacuate immediately, he left behind personal property, the city prevented him and other residents from returning to collect their property and the city planned to tear down the damaged buildings.
Shaver’s complaint, the opinion noted, attempted to assert a replevin claim against the Whittier Condominiums Homeowners Association. For federal jurisdiction, he invoked the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 and Colorado Revised Statutes 13-6-104(1). He also stated, “the issues involve interpretations of the U.S. Constitution’s 4th, 5th and 14th amendments (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331).”
The District Court ordered Shaver to show cause why the case shouldn’t be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In response, he pointed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, which described when “federal-question jurisdiction will lie over state-law claims [between nondiverse parties] that implicate significant federal issues.” He said the significant federal issues would be “[t]he interpretation and application of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments in cases involving the wrongful detention of property [which] implicate the balance between individual rights and the interests of property owners.” He also asserted his allegations demonstrated the HOA was acting under color of state law and 42 U.S. Code 1983 could provide jurisdiction. He further invoked the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S. Code 2201.
The District Court rejected these arguments. It found no likelihood under Grable that federal constitutional issues would arise in a property dispute between two private actors and the case would otherwise be too fact-bound to create a significant federal issue, the opinion noted. The court said his allegations didn’t show the HOA had acted under color of state law and concluded “he cannot rely on section 1983 as a basis for federal jurisdiction.” Finally, following case law, it said the Declaratory Judgment Act isn’t a basis for jurisdiction.
The District Court thus held it didn’t have subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing Shaver three weeks to file an amended complaint. It warned that failure to file a timely amended complaint would end the case.
Instead of filing an amended complaint, Shaver moved for authorization to file an interlocutory appeal. The District Court denied his motion and entered final judgment. Shaver’s appeal followed.
After evaluation, the 10th Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal for lack of subject–matter jurisdiction, affirmed the District Court’s denial of Shaver’s recusal motion, vacated its denial of Shaver’s motion to seal and remanded for further consideration, rejected Shaver’s request to consolidate his state-court lawsuits with this appeal and denied as moot Shaver’s two objections to the Clerk of Court’s order denying his motion to consolidate.