Rejman v. Shang et al

Filing 25

ORDER Granting 21 Motion for Demand for Security of Costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall post security bonds in the amount of $500.00 as to each of the instant defendants within seven days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/14/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

KAMILA REJMAN,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-367 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
THOMAS SHANG, M.D., et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is a motion demanding security of costs filed by defendants

14

Urgent Care Extra, LLC and Urgent Care Extra – Tropicana & Jones, LLC (“defendants”). (Doc.

15

# 21). Plaintiff Kamila Rejman (“plaintiff”) filed a response. (Doc. # 22). Defendants did not file

16

a reply, and the deadline to reply has now passed.

17

In their motion, defendants ask that plaintiff, as a non-resident of Nevada, be required to

18

file security of costs in the amount of $500.00 for defendant’s costs and charges which may be

19

awarded in this case. (Doc. # 21).

20

Plaintiff responds that she objects to defendants’ request because defendants initially failed

21

to answer plaintiff’s complaint in a timely manner. Plaintiff states that she consented not to move

22

for default against defendants despite their initial failure to appear. On March 30, 2015, plaintiff

23

agreed to stipulate to a two-week extension for defendants’ answer. On April 6, 2015, plaintiff

24

still had not received a stipulation or answer and reminded defendants to execute and file the

25

stipulation. (Doc. # 22). On April 7, 2015, the parties stipulated that defendants would have until

26

April 8, 2015, to respond. (Doc. # 13). On April 8, 2015, defendants filed their answer, as well

27

as the instant motion. (Docs. # 19, 21).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “federal district courts have inherent power to require

2

plaintiffs to post security for costs.” Simulnet E. Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d

3

573, 574 (9th Cir. 1994). A federal district court typically follows the forum state’s practice

4

regarding security of costs, particularly when a party is a non-resident. See, e.g., § 2671 Security

5

for Costs, 10 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2671 (3d ed.). Nevada Revised Statute 18.130 provides

6

that the court may require an out-of-state plaintiff to post a security for costs in an amount up to

7

$500.00 upon request by a defendant. Nev. Rev. Stat. 18.130.

8

After reviewing the filings in this matter, the court finds that it is appropriate to require

9

plaintiff to post security of $500.00 as to each of the instant defendants. While plaintiff may have

10

extended defendants professional courtesy by agreeing to an extension of time, this does not negate

11

the force of Nevada Revised Statute 18.130. This section provides that security of costs “may be

12

required by the defendant, by the filing and service on plaintiff of a written demand therefor within

13

the time limited for answering the complaint.” Nev. Rev. Stat. 18.130(1).

14

Plaintiff is an out-of-state resident, and defendants filed the instant motion within the

15

stipulated answer deadline. The court finds it appropriate to order security of costs in this instance.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant’s motion

18
19
20
21
22
23

demanding security of costs, (doc. # 21), be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall post security bonds in the amount of
$500.00 as to each of the instant defendants within seven days of the entry of this order.
DATED May 14, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-