Boruchowitz v. Beckett et al
ORDER denying ECF No. 75 Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of Nevada, or, in the Alternative, for Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ROBERT BECKETT et al.,
This is a malicious prosecution case. Plaintiff David Boruchowitz sued Defendants in
this Court for: (1) false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress (“IIED”) under § 1983; (2) negligent training, supervision, and retention; (3) “breach of
duty of care,” i.e., negligence; (4) “prosecutorial misconduct,” i.e., common law malicious
prosecution; (5) civil conspiracy; and (6) defamation. The Court granted summary judgment to
Defendants as against all claims except those for malicious prosecution (under both 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law), civil conspiracy, and defamation. The Court later reconsidered in part,
noting that Defendants were immune from the malicious prosecution claims insofar as they were
based on § 1983, but not insofar as they were based on a malicious prosecution claim under
1 of 2
Defendant Robert Beckett asked the Court to reconsider as to the merits of the state law
malicious prosecution claim and also to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), but the Court
denied the motion. Beckett appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on both counts.
Defendant Robert Bettinger has now asked the Court to certify the immunity question to the
Nevada Supreme Court, and Beckett has joined the motion.
The Supreme Court may answer questions of law certified to it by the
Supreme Court of the United States, a Court of Appeals of the United States or of
the District of Columbia, a United States District Court, or a United States
Bankruptcy Court when requested by the certifying court, if there are involved in
any proceeding before those courts questions of law of this state which may be
determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it
appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of
the Supreme Court of this state.
Nev. R. App. P. 5(a). In order to be “determinative of the cause,” the answer the Nevada
Supreme Court is asked to answer must be dispositive of at least part of the federal case. Volvo
Cars of N. Am., Inc. v. Ricci, 137 P.3d 1161, 1164 (Nev. 2006). There is controlling precedent in
this case, as noted by both this Court and the Court of Appeals. Nor will the Court reconsider its
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme
Court of Nevada, or, in the Alternative, for Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (ECF No.
75) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 26th day of of October, 2016.
Dated thisThis 18 daySeptember, 2016.
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
2 of 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?