US Bank National Association v. BDJ Intestments, LLC, et al.

Filing 26

ORDER that 18 Motion for Demand for Security of Costs is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must submit a bond pursuant to this Order in the amount of $500.00 as to Defendant. Failure to do so within thirty days of the filing date of this Order shall constitute grounds for dismissal.FURTHER ORDERED that 25 Motion to Extend Time is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/28/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
BDJ INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00866-GMN-PAL
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Demand for Security of Costs (ECF No.

10
11

18) filed by Defendant BDJ Investments, LLC (“Defendant”), to which Plaintiff US Bank

12

National Association, as trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage

13

Loan Asset Back Certificates Series 2005-A8 (“Plaintiff”), filed a Response (ECF No.

14

20). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Notice of Withdrawal (ECF No. 21) of its opposition

15

to the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.1
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “federal district courts have inherent power to

16
17

require plaintiffs to post security for costs.” Simulnet E. Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel

18

Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Nevada law, “[w]hen a plaintiff

19

in an action resides out of the State, or is a foreign corporation, security for the costs and

20

charges which may be awarded against such plaintiff may be required by the defendant.”

21

NRS § 18.130(1). “After the lapse of 30 days from the service of notice that security is

22

required . . . upon proof thereof, and that no undertaking as required has been filed, the

23

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Extension of Time “request[ing] an extension up until 10 days after the
Court issues an order requiring [deposit of the] bond.” (Mot. Ext. of Time 2:5–6, ECF No. 25). It appears
that Plaintiff mistakenly believes that it must post a cost bond within thirty days from the date the Motion
for Demand for Security of Costs was filed. (See id. 1:24–2:4). However, the deadline to post a cost bond
is set by a court’s order requiring the bond, not the motion requesting the bond. See NRS § 18.130(1).
Accordingly, the Motion for Extension of Time is denied as moot.
1

24
25

Page 1 of 2

1

court or judge may order the action to be dismissed.” NRS § 18.130(4). It is the policy of

2

the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to enforce the requirements of

3

NRS § 18.130 in diversity actions. See, e.g., Feagins v. Trump Org., No. 2:11-cv-01121-

4

GMN, 2012 WL 925027, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2012).

5

Because Plaintiff resides outside of Nevada, (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1), the Court

6

finds that it is appropriate to require Plaintiff to post a security bond of $500.00 in this

7

matter pursuant to NRS § 18.130.

8

IV.

9
10
11

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion Demanding Security of Costs (ECF

No. 18) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must submit a bond pursuant to this

12

Order in the amount of $500.00 as to Defendant. Failure to do so within thirty days of

13

the filing date of this Order shall constitute grounds for dismissal.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No.
25) is DENIED as moot.
28
DATED this _____ day of June 2016.

17
18
19
20

__________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2