Lafayette v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 40

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 15 , 18 , 21 , 22 the defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED with leave to amend. If Lafayette can file an amended complaint curing the jurisdictional defects in his original complaint, he must file that amended complaint by 5/8/2017. If he fails to do so, the case will be closed. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/24/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

ROBERT LAFAYETTE,

5

Plaintiff,

6

v.

7

STATE OF NEVADA et al.,

8

Case No. 2:16-cv-02935-APG-VCF
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
(ECF Nos. 15, 18, 21, 22)

Defendants.

9
10
11

Plaintiff Robert Lafayette brings this case for “trespass” and “trespass on the case”

12

against the defendants, contesting a home foreclosure carried out in 2015. Although the exact

13

grievance is mostly inscrutable, it fits most closely with a claim for wrongful foreclosure, and

14

possibly also a claim for intentional or negligent misrepresentation. The defendants move to

15

dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the complaint presents no

16

federal question and the parties are not completely diverse, I lack jurisdiction over the matter and

17

therefore grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

18

United States district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

19

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court has original jurisdiction over cases

20

“arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States,” or when the amount in

21

controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from

22

that of each defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis,

23

519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (“complete diversity of citizenship” is required). The party asserting that

24

this Court has jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

25

The complaint appears to assert claims for wrongful foreclosure and misrepresentation

26

(each of the seven causes of action is entitled “trespass on the case,” but the claims do not

27

present seven coherent, distinct causes of action). These claims do not arise under the

28

1

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Section 1331 therefore does not provide

2

subject matter jurisdiction because a federal question is not presented on the face of the

3

plaintiff’s complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

4

Lafayette describes himself as a “sovereign citizen,” but asserts he is “a people of

5

Nevada,” which I understand to mean he is a citizen of Nevada for purposes of diversity

6

jurisdiction analysis. One basis on which the defendants move to dismiss the complaint is that

7

complete diversity is destroyed by defendants Clark County and the State of Nevada. See Nevada

8

ex rel. Colorado River Comm’n of Nevada v. Pioneer Cos., Inc., 245 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1129 (D.

9

Nev. 2003) (quoting Missouri Water Users’ Ass’n v. Montana Power Co., 139 F.2d 998, 999

10

(9th Cir.1944) (“Absent a federal question, the district courts are not possessed of jurisdiction of

11

suits by or against a state.”)). Lafayette offers no response in rebuttal. He therefore has not met

12

his burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists in this Court. He may pursue his

13

claims in state court but not in federal court as he has presented them in his complaint.

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 15,

15

18, 21, 22) are GRANTED with leave to amend. If Lafayette can file an amended complaint

16

curing the jurisdictional defects in his original complaint, he must file that amended complaint by

17

May 8, 2017. If he fails to do so, the case will be closed.

18

DATED this 24th day of April, 2017.

19
20

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2