Helget v. Vathayanon et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting ECF No. 9 Motion to Dismiss, dismissing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a defendant in this action; remanding this action to the Second Judicial District Court (certified copies of this order and docket sheet mailed to Second Judicial). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
LISA HELGET,

9
10

***
Case No. 3:17-cv-00282-LRH-(WGC)
Plaintiff, ORDER

11

v.

12

ANGEL VATHAYANON; LYON COUNTY
ANIMAL SERVICES; and U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

Before the court is defendant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“USFWS”) motion to

17
18

dismiss. ECF No. 9. For the reasons below, the court shall grant USFWS’s motion and dismiss it

19

as a defendant in this action.

20

I.

Procedural Background
Plaintiff Lisa Helget (“Helget”) is a resident of Dayton, Nevada, and the former legal

21
22

custodian of a desert tortoise named Hardhat1. Helget alleges that defendant Angel Vathayanon

23

(“Vathayanon”) wrongfully took possession of Hardhat from Lyon County Animal Services

24

(“LCAS”) after the latter recovered Hardhat from the property of a Dayton resident.2 Helget filed

25

1

26
27
28

The Desert Tortoise is a protected species in Nevada and individuals may not possess them as pets. However,
individuals may act as a “custodian” to a Desert Tortoise through a process approved by the Nevada Department of
Wildlife (NDOW). See NAC 503.093.
2
Hardhat disappeared from Helget’s property in early June 2016. Helget assumed that Hardhat burrowed underneath
a shed in the backyard to escape the summer heat. On or about June 15, 2016, a Dayton resident contacted LCAS to
remove a Desert Tortoise, later identified as Hardhat, from the resident’s property. On June 24, 2016, Vayathanon
approached LCAS as the president of the Reno Tahoe Rescue Society and offered to take Hardhat and find a foster
home for him. Hardhat was later adopted by an unnamed party. See ECF No. 1-2 at 2–3.

1

a claim in state court seeking injunctive relief requiring Vathayanon to identify the person who

2

later adopted Hardhat and for the replevin of Hardhat. See ECF No. 1. Helget then amended her

3

complaint to add USFWS and LCAS as defendants. Subsequently, USFWS removed this case to

4

federal court and now brings the present motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9.

5

II.

Discussion

6

In its motion to dismiss, USFWS contends that it is entitled to sovereign immunity from

7

suit and, as such, should be dismissed as a defendant from this action. See ECF No. 4. The court

8

agrees.
Before a court exercises jurisdiction over a suit against the government, the court must

9
10

have “a clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity, [along with] a claim

11

falling within the terms of the waiver.” U.S. v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472

12

(2003). Unless and until a waiver of sovereign immunity is presented, the United States may not

13

be sued. U.S. v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). Government agencies also enjoy sovereign

14

immunity; however, many federal statutes permit suits by private citizens against the agency

15

when that agency fails to take action or to require an agency to take action. See Bennett v. Spear,

16

520 U.S. 154, 160–167 (1996) (discussing the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species

17

Act).

18

Here, defendant USFWS is a federal agency entitled to sovereign immunity and Helget

19

fails to cite any federal statute waiving sovereign immunity. Helget only cites to NAC chapter

20

503, a provision of the Nevada Administrative Code which lists protected species of reptiles,

21

including the Desert Tortoise. However, there is no provision within chapter 503 that permits a

22

suit against the USFWS or otherwise permits a party to join the USFWS in an action under the

23

Nevada statute. Rather, chapter 503 covers the duties of the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

24

Further, there has been no showing that the USFWS is a necessary party in Helget’s replevin

25

action and the USFWS has asserted that it has no interest in the underlying action. Therefore, the

26

court shall grant USFWS’s motion to dismiss.

27

This action is before the court because USFWS, as a federal agency, removed the case to

28

federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). The dismissal of the USFWS as a defendant will
2

1

deprive the court of its original jurisdiction over this action, and the court specifically declines to

2

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Helget’s state law claims. Accordingly, this case shall be

3

remanded back to the state court for further proceedings.

4
5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s motion

6

to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is DISMISSED as a

7

defendant in this action.

8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be remanded to the Second Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada for further proceedings.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED this 8th day of August, 2017.

12

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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