Cabral et al v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation et al

Filing 21

ORDER Granting 20 Stipulation for Extension of Time re 9 Amended Complaint. See Order for deadlines. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 2/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

MARGARITA CABRAL, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9
10

v.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATIONS

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,

(ECF No. 20)

Defendants.
______________________________
MARY PHELPS, et al.,

11
12

Case No. 2:17-cv-02841-APG-VCF

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-02848-APG-CWH
(ECF Nos. 20, 22, 23)

13

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

14

Defendants.
______________________________

15
16

MARIA MARTINEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

17
18
19

Case No. 2:17-cv-02859-APG-NJK
(ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26)

v.
LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP, et al.,

20

Defendants.
______________________________

21

STEVEN SCHNITZER, et al.,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.
WYNN RESORTS, LTD. and WYNN
LAS VEGAS, LLC
Defendants.
_____________________________

Case No. 2:17-cv-02868-APG-GWF
(ECF Nos. 20, 22, 23)

1

KERRI SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff,

2
3
4

TREASURE ISLAND, LLC and RUFFING
ACQUISITION, LLC,

5
6
7

Case No. 2:17-cv-02930-APG-CWH

v.

Defendants.
________________________________
These cases allege the defendants charged their guests resort fees that included internet

8

access in a manner that violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Several such cases have been

9

filed in this District. Some of those cases are pending before me, and some have been assigned to

10
11

other judges in the District.
The parties to many of these cases have reached an agreement to stay all deadlines and to

12

consolidate the cases already assigned to me solely for the purpose of ruling on an anticipated

13

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to be filed in the Cabral case. The

14

parties have agreed to take certain actions in the cases not pending before me based on my ruling

15

on the subject matter jurisdiction issue.

16

I grant the stipulations in the cases before me. However, I caution the parties that their

17

agreement may not achieve the results they anticipate. I am not the assigned judge in the other

18

cases, so my ruling granting these stipulations has no impact on the deadlines in any cases not

19

assigned to me.

20

Additionally, I cannot bind other district judges and the parties cannot agree to confer

21

subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court. See Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Maryland, 179

22

F.3d 754, 757 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1999)

23

(stating “the parties cannot, by their consent, confer jurisdiction upon a federal court in excess of

24

that provided by Article III of the United States Constitution”). Thus, if I ultimately conclude

25

there is jurisdiction in my cases, that does not necessarily mean the other judges will agree. Each

26

judge has an independent obligation to ensure subject matter jurisdiction exists in the cases

27

pending before that judge. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (stating federal

28
Page 2 of 3

1

courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists,

2

even in the absence of a challenge from any party”).

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following stipulations are GRANTED:

4

• Cabral v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-02841-APG-VCF, ECF No. 20;

5

• Phelps v. MGM Resorts Int’l, 2:17-cv-02848-APG-CWH, ECF Nos. 20, 22, 23;

6

• Martinez v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 2:17-cv-02859-APG-NJK, ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26; and

7

• Schnitzer v. Wynn Resorts, Ltd., 2:17-cv-02868-APG-GWF, ECF Nos. 20, 22, 23.

8

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2018.

9
10
11

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3