Calove v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 61

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the 12 , 15 , 16 , 28 , 42 defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED with leave to amend. If Calove can file an amended complaint curing the jurisdictional defects in her original complaint, she must file that amended complaint by 5/8/17 If she fails to do so, the case will be closed. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 5 6 MARINA CALOVE, Plaintiff, v. 7 STATE OF NEVADA et al., 8 Case No. 2:16-cv-02953-APG-VCF ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 12, 15, 16, 26, 28, 42) Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Marina Calove brings this case for “trespass” and “trespass on the case” against 11 the defendants, contesting a home foreclosure carried out in 2015. Although the exact grievance 12 is mostly inscrutable, it fits most closely with a claim for wrongful foreclosure, and possibly also 13 a claim for intentional or negligent misrepresentation. The defendants move to dismiss the case 14 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the complaint presents no federal question and 15 the parties are not completely diverse, I lack jurisdiction over the matter and therefore grant the 16 defendants’ motions to dismiss. 17 United States district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 18 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court has original jurisdiction over cases 19 “arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States,” or when the amount in 20 controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from 21 that of each defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 22 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (“complete diversity of citizenship” is required). The party asserting that 23 this Court has jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. 24 The complaint appears to assert claims for wrongful foreclosure and misrepresentation 25 (each of the six causes of action is entitled “trespass” or “trespass on the case,” but the claims do 26 not present six coherent, distinct causes of action). These claims do not arise under the 27 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 Calove describes herself as a “sovereign citizen,” but asserts she is “a people of Nevada,” 5 which I understand to mean she is a citizen of Nevada for purposes of diversity jurisdiction 6 analysis. One basis on which the defendants move to dismiss the complaint is that complete 7 diversity is destroyed by defendants Clark County, the State of Nevada, Rebecca Kern, and 8 Bobby Choudhury. See Nevada ex rel. Colorado River Comm’n of Nevada v. Pioneer Cos., Inc., 9 245 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1129 (D. Nev. 2003) (quoting Missouri Water Users’ Ass’n v. Montana 10 Power Co., 139 F.2d 998, 999 (9th Cir.1944) (“Absent a federal question, the district courts are 11 not possessed of jurisdiction of suits by or against a state.”)). Calove offers no response in 12 rebuttal. She therefore has not met her burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction 13 exists in this Court. She may pursue her claims in state court but not in federal court as she has 14 presented them in her complaint 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 12, 16 15, 16, 26, 28, 42) are GRANTED with leave to amend. If Calove can file an amended 17 complaint curing the jurisdictional defects in her original complaint, he must file that amended 18 complaint by May 8, 2017. If she fails to do so, the case will be closed. 19 DATED this 24th day of April, 2017. 20 21 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?