Jablonski Enterprises, LTD v. Nye County et al

Filing 67

ORDER that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 6 , 7 , 11 , 51 ), are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 35 ), is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

JABLONSKI ENTERPRISES, LTD,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

NYE COUNTY, et al.,
7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02296-GMN-GWF
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court are four Motions to Dismiss filed by the following defendants

10
11

(collectively “Defendants”): (1) Summa, LLC, Lithium Corporation, and Henry Tonking

12

(collectively “Summa Defendants”), (ECF No. 6); (2) Clayton P. Brust (“Brust”), (ECF No. 7);

13

(3) Greg Ekins and G.I.S. Land Services (collectively “Ekins Defendants”) (ECF No. 11); and

14

(4) Nye County, Nevada, Sheree Stringer, Debbie Orrick, Brian Kunzi, and Marla Zlotek, (ECF

15

No. 51). The Motions are fully briefed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS

16

Defendants’ Motions.

17

I.

18

BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the disputed ownership of certain real property identified by

19

parcel number APN 000-106-06 and located in Nye County, Nevada, consisting of 58 patented

20

mining claims (the “Property”). (See Compl. ¶¶ 56, 64, ECF No. 1). Plaintiff Jablonski

21

Enterprises’ (“Plaintiff”) allegations center around events related to a Petition for a Writ of

22

Mandamus filed by Summa in the Nye County District Court, allegedly filed without notice to

23

Plaintiff, the “real party in interest.” (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 64, 65). Plaintiff alleges that as a result of

24

those proceedings, “Nye County agreed to simply transfer title [to the Property] without

25

consulting counsel for [Plaintiff].” (Id. ¶ 68). According to Plaintiff, prior to these events, it

Page 1 of 5

1

was the titled legal owner of the Property. (Id. ¶ 70).

2

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this Court alleging six causes

3

of action: (1) violation of civil rights pursuant to the United States and Nevada constitutions;

4

(2) forgery of conveyance pursuant to NRS § 205.090; (3) uttering a forged instrument pursuant

5

to NRS § 205.110; (4) conversion; (5) civil conspiracy; (6) civil racketeering claims pursuant to

6

NRS § 207.400, et seq.; and (7) respondeat superior. (See Compl. ¶¶ 77–141). Subsequently,

7

Plaintiff filed an identical Complaint in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County, Nevada.

8

(See Ex. 2 to Ekins Defs.’ Supp. to MTD at 12, ECF No. 62). In both cases, Defendants filed

9

special Motions to Dismiss, (ECF No. 6, 7, 11, 51), seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims

10

pursuant to Nevada’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) statute,

11

NRS § 41.650, et seq.

12

Following a hearing, Defendants’ Motions in the state court case were granted, and

13

Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. (See Ex. 1 to Ekins Defs.’ Supp. to MTD at

14

8–10). The same Motions are currently pending before this Court. In supplemental briefings to

15

their Motions to Dismiss, Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s case as barred by the

16

doctrine of res judicata. (See Ekins Defs.’ Supp. to MTD); (Summa Defs.’ Supp. to MTD, ECF

17

No. 60); (Brust’s Supp. to MTD, ECF No. 61).

18

II.

19

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) mandates that a court dismiss a cause

20

of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See North Star Int’l. v.

21

Ariz. Corp. Comm’n., 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). When considering a motion to

22

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the

23

complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds

24

on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering

25

whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the Court will take all material allegations

Page 2 of 5

1

as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v.

2

Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

3

The Court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely

4

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden

5

State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic recitation of a cause of action

6

with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a

7

violation is plausible, not just possible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

8

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (emphasis added).

9

“Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling

10

on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion . . . However, material which is properly submitted as part of the

11

complaint may be considered” on a motion to dismiss. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard

12

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Similarly,

13

“documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party

14

questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on

15

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss” without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for

16

summary judgment. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Federal Rule

17

of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record.” Mack v. S. Bay

18

Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court need not accept as true those

19

allegations that contradict facts properly subject to judicial notice. Shwarz v. United States, 234

20

F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000).

21

If the court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should

22

be granted unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by

23

amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant

24

to Rule 15(a), the court should “freely” give leave to amend “when justice so requires,” and in

25

the absence of a reason such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

Page 3 of 5

1

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue

2

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the

3

amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

4

III.

5

DISCUSSION
Res judicata is an umbrella term that often refers to the concept that a party cannot

6

relitigate a cause of action or issue that has already been determined by a court. Exec. Mgmt.,

7

Ltd. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 963 P.2d 465, 473 (Nev. 1998). The general rule is that federal

8

courts must give the “same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments

9

would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” Migra v. Warren

10

City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (quoting Kremer v. Chem. Constr.

11

Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982)). Federal courts must apply the res judicata rules of the court

12

that rendered the underlying judgment. See id. at 81–82.

13
14
15
16
17

“Claim preclusion” is one subspecies of that rule. Exec. Mgmt., Ltd., 963 P.2d at 473.
Under Nevada law, three basic elements are required for this doctrine to apply:
(1) the issue decided in the prior litigation must be identical to the
issue presented in the current action; (2) the initial ruling must have
been on the merits and have become final; and (3) the party against
whom the judgment is asserted must have been a party or in privity
with a party to the prior litigation.

18
19

Id.; accord Univ. of Nev. v. Tarkanian, 879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (Nev. 1994); Restatement

20

(Second) Judgments § 123 (1995). Whether the prior and current litigation constitute “identical

21

causes of action” under Nevada law means “whether the sets of facts essential to maintain the

22

two suits are the same.” Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe County, 69 F.3d 321, 328 (9th

23

Cir. 1995) (citing Tomiyasu v. Golden, 400 P.2d 415 (Nev. 1965)).

24
25

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and
claim preclusion and must therefore be dismissed with prejudice. The parties in this suit are

Page 4 of 5

1

exactly the same as the parties named in Plaintiff’s state court action. (See Ex. 2 to Ekins Defs.’

2

Supp. to MTD at 12, ECF No. 62). The Court finds that the final judgment in the state court

3

action is a valid decision on the merits. (See Ex. 1 to Ekins Defs.’ Supp. to MTD at 10, ECF

4

No. 62) (“Pursuant to NRS 41.660(4) this Order operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”);

5

see also NRS § 41.660(5) (“If the court dismisses the action pursuant to a special motion to

6

dismiss filed pursuant to subsection 2, the dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the

7

merits.”). Also, the claims in the state action all derive from the same set of facts, the same

8

documents, the same property, and the same state proceedings as the instant action. Indeed,

9

Plaintiff’s complaints in both actions are identical. Because this action is based on the same

10

claims dismissed with prejudice in the state court action, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s

11

Complaint with prejudice.1

12

IV.

13
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 11,
51), are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

15
16

CONCLUSION

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 35), is
DENIED.
6
DATED this _____ day of February, 2017.

17
18
19

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

20
21
22
23
24
25

1

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 35). Generally, leave to amend is
only denied when it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. See DeSoto v.
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Futility of amendment is one basis on which leave
to amend may be denied. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Where an action is dismissed on the basis
of res judicata and claim preclusion, any amendment is necessarily futile, since curing this deficiency is not
possible by definition. Accordingly, because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint on this basis, granting
leave to amend would be futile, and the instant Motion to Amend must be denied.

Page 5 of 5