McCarty v. Las Vegas Meadows, Ltd et al

Filing 32

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, as the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/11/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

Case No. 2:18-cv-00435-RFB-GWF
ORDER

v.
LAS VEGAS MEADOWS, LTD, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

I.

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13). For the reasons below, the Court grants Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court summarizes the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. ECF No. 1.
On an unspecified date, Plaintiff Robert Joseph McCarty and a friend went on a tour of the

Las Vegas Meadows community to see a mobile home unit listed for sale. A leasing agent drove
Plaintiff in a golf cart and did not warn him of any potential hazards. When Plaintiff exited the
golf cart, he struck his leg on a hazardous protruding step, which was unmarked and not painted
yellow or orange to identify it as a hazard. Plaintiff’s leg was injured and bleeding as a result of
the incident. Las Vegas Meadows has a first aid kit but would not provide it to Plaintiff even
though he was bleeding. Plaintiff has since developed a scar. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages in the amount of $200,000.

III.

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 9, 2018. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed the instant

3

Motion to Dismiss on April 11, 2018. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary

4

Judgment on August 6, 2018. ECF No. 13.

5
IV.

6

LEGAL STANDARD

7

In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a pleading must contain “a short

8

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

8(a)(2). A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.

10

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party asserting

11

jurisdiction to establish it. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, 546 F.3d

12

981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate if the

13

complaint, considered in its entirety, fails to allege facts on its face that are sufficient to

14

establish subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 984–85.

15
V.

16

DISCUSSION

17

For this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 1332, the parties must be diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

19

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When the plaintiff originally files in federal court, the Court determines the

20

amount in controversy from the face of the complaint, which controls so long as the claim is made

21

in good faith. Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

22

the Court must dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction if, “upon the face of the complaint, it is

23

obvious that the suit cannot involve the necessary amount.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate

24

of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indemnity

25

Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938)). “To justify dismissal, it must appear to a legal

26

certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Id. (quoting Crum, 231

27

F.3d at 1131).

28

///

-2-

1

The Court finds to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s claim cannot involve the amount

2

necessary to confer jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that he injured his leg on a golf cart, causing

3

bleeding and a scar. He faults Defendants for failing to provide a first aid kit. Plaintiff does not

4

allege that any other medical care was sought, received, or necessary. Accepting all facts alleged

5

in Plaintiff’s complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the

6

Court finds that it is obvious upon the face of the complaint that Plaintiff cannot prove damages

7

exceeding $75,000 in this case.

8
9

VI.

CONCLUSION

10

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED and

11

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED, as the Court finds it lacks

12

subject matter jurisdiction.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.

14
15

DATED: March 11, 2019.

16

__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-