Villanueva et al v. Ambassador Limousine et al

Filing 32

ORDER that Motions to Dismiss 17 , 23 , and the Motion to Quash Service 22 , are GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 4(m). FURTHER ORDERED that every filing in this case by Attorneys Andrey Kalinin, Deborah Kong, and/or Miguel Barquera are STRICKEN, as is the Summons 14 issued by the Clerk. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/11/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
VERONICA VILLANUEVA et al.,

11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12

This negligence case arises out of an automobile accident. Pending before the Court are

7
Plaintiffs,
8
vs.
9
AMBASSADOR LIMOUSINE et al.,
10
Defendants.

2:12-cv-01473-RCJ-PAL
ORDER

13

two Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 17, 23) and a Motion to Quash Service (ECF No. 22). For

14

the reasons given herein, the Court grants the motions.

15

I.

16

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 18, 2010, Plaintiffs Veronica Villanueva and Zachary Daniels were riding in a

17

limousine owned by Defendant Ambassador Limousine (“Ambassador”) and driven by

18

Ambassador’s employee Defendant David Razon. (Compl. ¶¶ 4–7, 10, 12, Aug. 20, 2012, ECF

19

No. 1). Razon was driving westbound on West Tropicana Boulevard in Las Vegas, Nevada at

20

forty-five miles per hour. (Id. ¶ 12).1 The traffic light at the Cameron Street intersection was

21

yellow when Razon approached it, but rather than stop, Razon attempted to clear the intersection

22

before the light turned red. (Id. ¶ 13). Razon was driving directly behind a taxicab owned by

23

Defendant Western Cab Company (“Western”) and driven by Western’s employee Defendant

24
25

1

Plaintiffs argue this was an unsafe speed but do not allege the speed limit. (See id.).

1

Samson Gebremedhin, who was also trying to beat the yellow light. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11, 13).2 Traffic in

2

front of Gebremedhin and Razon had stopped at the Cameron Street intersection, however. (Id.

3

¶ 14). Gebremedhin struck a third vehicle that had stopped at the intersection, and Razon struck

4

Gebremedhin immediately thereafter. (Id. ¶¶ 14–15).3 Ambassador had not provided visible or

5

accessible safety belts for Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 16). Villanueva sustained lacerations to her face and

6

legs from broken glassware, serious injuries to her head, neck, shoulder, upper back, mid-to-

7

lower spine, and legs, as well as closed head trauma, and was knocked unconscious. (Id. ¶ 20).

8

Daniels struck his left knee violently, lacerating it and aggravating pre-existing injuries from his

9

military service. (Id. ¶ 21). Plaintiffs allege Razon and Gebremedhin were negligent for, inter

10

alia, failing to obey traffic lights, failure to obey speed limits, failure to provide safety belts for

11

paying passengers, failure to keep a proper lookout, failure to avoid a collision, and failure to

12

notice the presence and proximity of the vehicle in front of him. (See id. ¶¶ 23, 39).

13

Plaintiffs sued Defendants in diversity in this Court for negligence. All Plaintiffs are

14

California citizens, and all Defendants are Nevada citizens. (See id. ¶¶ 4–9). The Nevada

15

Secretary of State website confirms that Ambassador is a domestic limited partnership and

16

Western is a domestic corporation. See Nevada Secretary of State (Jan. 22, 2013, 8:21 AM),

17

http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpSearch.aspx. Plaintiffs list four nominal causes of action

18

for negligence. Razon and Gebremedhin are listed under the first and third counts, respectively,

19

and their employers, Ambassador and Western, are listed under the second and fourth counts,

20

respectively, under a respondeat superior theory. Defendants have moved to dismiss or to strike

21

the Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 4 and Local Rule 10-2.

22

///

23
24

2

Plaintiffs also argue that Gebremedhin was traveling at an unsafe speed. (See id.).

25

3

The driver of the third vehicle is not a party and is not identified in the Complaint.
Page 2 of 5

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

2

A.

3

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the
court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a
specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must
extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

4
5
6

Rule 4(m)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

7

B.

8

An attorney not admitted to this Court may practice only by leave of the Court. Local R.

9

Local Rule 10-2

10-2(a). A petition for admittance pro hac vice must confirm that the attorney is not a member of

10

the State Bar of Nevada, is not a Nevada resident, is not regularly employed in Nevada, is in

11

good standing to practice before the bar of any jurisdiction in the U.S., and an active member of

12

the Nevada bar is associated as counsel of record. Id. While the petition is pending, the attorney

13

may take no action apart from filing the first pleading or motion. Local R. 10-2(c). The Clerk

14

shall not issue any summons or writ while the petition is pending. Id. Attorneys have forty-five

15

days to comply with the rule after making their first appearance. Local R. 10-2(e). Failure to

16

comply may result in the striking of any and all documents filed by the offending attorney. Local

17

R. 10-2(k).

18

III.

ANALYSIS

19

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ attorneys are not licensed to practice law by the Supreme

20

Court of Nevada, or in the federal courts within Nevada, and have not been admitted pro hac vice

21

in the present matter. Defendants note that the Complaint failed to note that Local Rule 10-2 had

22

been complied with or would be complied with within the required time, and that the Clerk

23

entered notices to each of Plaintiffs’ counsel on August 20, 2012 noting that verified petitions for

24

admittance pro hac vice were due October 4, 2012. Despite these warnings, Plaintiffs’ counsel

25

have not submitted pro hac vice petitions. Two days before Defendants filed the present motion,
Page 3 of 5

1

the magistrate judge granted Plaintiffs’ separate motions to substitute a Reno, Nevada attorney

2

for their former counsel, and former counsel have been terminated.

3

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs failed to serve the Summons and Complaint within

4

120 days of filing the Complaint, as required by Rule 4(m). Defendants note that on August 21,

5

2012, the Clerk entered a notice into the docket noting that no summons was issued because

6

Plaintiffs’ attorneys were not authorized to practice before the Court and that a non-admitted

7

attorney could take no action beyond filing an initial pleading except to file a petition for

8

admittance pro hac vice. Not deterred, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed proposed summonses. The Clerk

9

entered another notice noting that counsel had used the wrong forms (from the District of

10

Nebraska) and had violated Local Rule 10-2(c) by filing additional pleadings without applying

11

for pro hac vice admission. Plaintiffs’ counsel took no further action and did not petition for

12

admission. On December 21, 2012, the Clerk entered its notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to

13

Rule 4(m) on January 20, 2013 because no proper proof of service had been filed. Only on

14

January 15, 2013, five days before the Rule 4(m) deadline, did Plaintiffs move to substitute

15

counsel. The same day, Plaintiffs’ counsel, still without having been admitted, filed another

16

proposed summons, which the Clerk erroneously issued. The next day, the magistrate judge

17

granted Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute local counsel. Plaintiffs’ now former counsel, which had

18

never been admitted, and which had been withdrawn, then filed alleged certificates of service

19

upon Ambassador and Western, as well as a “Declaration of Diligence” as to failed attempts to

20

serve Razon.

21

The Court first notes that the Clerk should not have issued the summonses on January 15,

22

2013 at a time when Plaintiffs were represented only by non-admitted counsel who had not even

23

filed pro hac vice petitions. The Court strikes those summonses. Second, even if the summonses

24

had been validly issued, Attorney Kalinin, who had withdrawn from the case, and who had never

25

even filed a petition to appear in the present case, cannot have filed the certificates of service or
Page 4 of 5

1

the “Declaration of Diligence.” Those filings are also stricken. The Complaint is also stricken

2

under Local Rule 10-2(k) and the case dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). There is no

3

good cause preventing dismissal. Counsel made no reasonable attempt to comply with Rule

4

4(m). Plaintiffs’ new local counsel may attempt to refile the case in this Court or another.

5

CONCLUSION

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 17, 23) and the

7

Motion to Quash Service (ECF No. 22) are GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED without

8

prejudice under Rule 4(m).

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that every filing in this case by Attorneys Andrey Kalinin,

10

Deborah Kong, and/or Miguel Barquera are STRICKEN, as is the Summons (ECF No. 14) issued

11

by the Clerk.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the case.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated this 11th day February, 2013.
Dated this 15th day of of March, 2013.

15
16
17

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5 of 5