Shapiro v. Treasure Island, LLC et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 21 , 22 the parties' stipulations are GRANTED. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KERRI SHAPIRO, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly
Case No. 2:17-cv-02930-APG-CWH
(ECF. Nos. 21, 22)
TREASURE ISLAND, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company d/b/a Treasure
Island Hotel & Casino; and RUFFIN
ACQUISITION, LLC, a Nevada limited
This case alleges that the defendants charged their guests resort fees that included internet
access in a manner that violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Several such cases have been
filed in this District; some are pending before me, and some have been assigned to other judges in
The parties to many of these cases, including this one, have reached an agreement to stay
all deadlines and to consolidate the cases already assigned to me solely for the purpose of ruling
on an anticipated motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to be filed in the
Cabral case (2:17-cv-2841). The parties have agreed to take certain actions in the cases not
pending before me based on my ruling on the subject matter jurisdiction issue.
I previously granted the stipulations in the cases before me, and I will do so in this case.
However, I again caution the parties that their agreement may not achieve the results they
anticipate. I am not the assigned judge in the other cases, so my ruling granting these stipulations
has no impact on the deadlines in any cases not assigned to me.
Additionally, I cannot bind other district judges and the parties cannot agree to confer
subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court. See Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Maryland, 179
F.3d 754, 757 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1999)
(stating “the parties cannot, by their consent, confer jurisdiction upon a federal court in excess of
that provided by Article III of the United States Constitution”). Thus, if I ultimately conclude
there is jurisdiction in my cases, that does not necessarily mean the other judges will agree. Each
judge has an independent obligation to ensure subject matter jurisdiction exists in the cases
pending before that judge. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (stating federal
courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists,
even in the absence of a challenge from any party”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ stipulations (ECF Nos. 21, 22) are
DATED THIS 12th day of March, 2018.
ANDREW P. GORDON
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?