Schaefer v. Nevada State Bank
Filing
25
ORDER that 22 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 15 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining motions are DENIED as moot.The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
8
J. MICHAEL SCHAEFER,
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER
v.
10
11
Case No. 2:16-cv-01261-JCM-PAL
NEVADA STATE BANK,
Defendant.
12
13
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
14
(ECF No. 22) and defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF No. 15). Prior
15
to the response deadline, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to respond to the motion to dismiss.
16
(ECF No. 16). Without a favorable disposition on the motion to extend time, plaintiff filed a
17
response to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19). Defendant did not reply to the motion to extend
18
time.1 Defendant also objected to the second amended complaint, and plaintiff responded to that
19
objection. (ECF Nos. 20, 21).
20
As an initial matter, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (ECF No. 17) on August
21
3, 2016, without the leave of this court or, apparently, the defendant’s consent. See (ECF No. 20).
22
On September 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file that second amended complaint.
23
(ECF No. 22). That motion is utterly devoid of any explanation why a second amended complaint
24
is necessary in this case or even how the proposed complaint is different than the first amended
25
complaint. (Id.). In fact, it appears that plaintiff may have introduced the second complaint for
26
the purpose of mooting the present motion to dismiss. See (ECF No. 19) (lacking any explanation
27
as to why a second amended complaint was needed yet stating that its filing mooted the motion to
28
For purposes of this order, this court assumes, without deciding, that plaintiff’s motion
to extend time to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss is meritorious. (ECF No. 16).
1
1
dismiss); see also (ECF Nos. 5, 7).
2
Therefore, this court cannot find that justice is advanced by plaintiff’s filing of the second
3
amended complaint and thus denies plaintiff’s motion for leave to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
15(a)(2); see also (ECF No. 22). As the first amended complaint is the operative complaint in this
5
case, the court will accordingly consider defendant’s related motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15).
6
The first amended complaint incorporates the underlying state complaint by reference,
7
which alleges claims regarding the parties’ banking relationship.2 (ECF No. 7). That complaint
8
alleges the following causes of action against defendant: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of
9
implied covenant of good faith; (3) negligence; and (4) unfair business practices. (ECF No. 1-1).
10
Defendant’s motion to dismiss argues that plaintiff, a disbarred attorney who has been
11
designated a vexatious litigant, has filed five earlier suits against defendant for “the same basic
12
complaint he raised in other suits; that [Nevada State Bank (‘NSB’)] is liable to him or his company
13
because it chooses not to do business with either of them. NSB won all of the prior suits.”3 (ECF
14
No. 15 at 3); see also (ECF No. 15-2); see generally In re Discipline of Schaefer, 31 P.3d 365
15
(Nev. 2001). Accordingly, defendant asserts, inter alia, the doctrine of res judicata and economic
16
loss to bar or otherwise defeat plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 15). However, the court need not
17
discuss these arguments here.
18
The local rules have the force of law. See United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–575
19
(1958). Under Local Rule 7-2(d), “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities
20
in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.” The Ninth
21
Circuit instructs that a district court must weigh several factors before granting a motion filed
22
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 because a party failed to comply with a local rule:
23
“(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its
24
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
25
26
27
28
2
This case was removed to federal district court on June 7, 2016. (ECF No. 1).
“[O]n a motion to dismiss a court may properly look beyond the complaint to matters of
public record and doing so does not convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment.”
Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated on other
grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 (1991). Moreover,
plaintiff has provided Nevada district court documents regarding previous litigation between the
parties. See generally (ECF No. 15).
3
1
cases o[n] their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46
2
F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986))
3
(discussing a Nevada local rule construing a failure to oppose a motion as effectively consenting
4
to the granting of that motion); see also Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2003)
5
(indicating that Ghazali provides the applicable rule for evaluating a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in
6
light of a local rule authorizing dismissal).
7
Plaintiff’s brief response to defendant’s motion to dismiss references only the unexplained
8
and unauthorized filing of the second amended complaint; there is no citation to any legal
9
authority, and plaintiff offers no substantive argument. See (ECF No. 19). Accordingly, plaintiff
10
has failed to file points and authorities in response to defendant’s motion. See LR 7-2(d).
11
Considering the Ghazali factors, this court finds that dismissal of this case: (1) would
12
further the public’s interest in the resolution of cases; (2) would aid the court’s management of its
13
docket; (3) would result in no prejudice to defendant; and (4) no less-drastic sanctions are available
14
in light of the content of the motion to dismiss and its requested relief. See 46 F.3d at 53; see also
15
(ECF No. 15). Moreover, the policy encouraging the consideration of cases on their merits does
16
not overcome the countervailing factors. In light of this analysis and plaintiff’s violation of Local
17
Rule 7-2(d), defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be granted. (ECF No. 15).
18
Accordingly,
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for
20
21
22
23
24
leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 22), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) be, and the
same hereby is, GRANTED, with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining motions be, and the same hereby are,
DENIED as moot.
25
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
26
DATED THIS 23rd day of January, 2017.
27
28
JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?