VAUGHN v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER Plaintiff's IFP is Granted. Directing Clerk to file the Complaint. Ordered Plaintiff has 20 days to amend the Complaint, if Plaintiff fails to do so, the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. nm 11/28. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/28/17. (jbk, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NAT VAUGHN,
1:17-cv-11460-NLH-JS
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL
doing business as
BORGATA HOTEL, CASINO & SPA,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
NAT VAUGHN
175 WEST 90TH STREET, #20-D
NEW YORK, NY 10024
Appearing pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Nat Vaughn, appearing pro se, has filed
a complaint against Defendant, MGM Resorts International, d/b/a,
Borgata Hotel, Casino & Spa (“Borgata”); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff claims that Borgata defamed him when he
was permanently banned from the casino for violating antilaundering laws because he used the slot machines to convert
cash to casino payment vouchers without actually playing the
slot machines, when he in fact did play the slot machines, and
such activity is otherwise not illegal; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed

without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP”
application), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court
may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if he
submits a proper IFP application; and
WHEREAS, although § 1915 refers to “prisoners,” federal
courts apply § 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications, Hickson v.
Mauro, 2011 WL 6001088, *1 (D.N.J.2011) (citing Lister v. Dept.
of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Section
1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not
just to prisoners.”) (other citations omitted); and
WHEREAS, the screening provisions of the IFP statute
require a federal court to dismiss an action sua sponte if,
among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, or if
it fails to comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448,
452 (3d Cir. 2013); Martin v. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, 2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. August 30, 2017)
(“Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's
Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to
dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”); and
WHEREAS, it appears that Plaintiff’s complaint is
sufficient to satisfy the § 1915 IFP screening process; but
2

WHEREAS, federal courts have an independent obligation to
address issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and may
do so at any stage of the litigation, Zambelli Fireworks Mfg.
Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010); Lincoln
Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015)
(citations omitted) (“The principal federal statute governing
diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, gives federal district
courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions ‘between ...
citizens of different States' where the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.

For over two hundred years, the statute has

been understood as requiring complete diversity between all
plaintiffs and all defendants, even though only minimal
diversity is constitutionally required. This means that, unless
there is some other basis for jurisdiction, no plaintiff [may]
be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff avers that this Court has jurisdiction
over this matter based on the diversity of citizenship of the
parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000,
exclusive of interests and costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a); but
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has failed to aver the citizenship of
the parties; and
WHEREAS, even though it appears that Plaintiff resides in
New York, he fails to plead his state of citizenship, see McCann
3

v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006)
(“Citizenship is synonymous with domicile, and the domicile of
an individual is his true, fixed and permanent home and place of
habitation. It is the place to which, whenever he is absent, he
has the intention of returning.”); Vanz, LLC v. Mattia &
Associates, 2016 WL 3148386 (D.N.J. June 1, 2016) (citing
Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 418; Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232
F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000)) (“The citizenship of a natural
person is determined by their domicile, not their residence(s).
That is because a natural person may have many residences, but
only one domicile.

Domicile is the location of a person's true

fixed home . . . to which, whenever he is absent, he has the
intention of returning.”); Witasick v. Hambrecht, 2013 WL
1222680, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2013) (citing Williamson v.
Osenton, 232 U.S. 604, 614 (1914)) (“[A]n individual may only
have one domicile, and thus may only be a citizen of one state
for diversity jurisdiction purposes.

Residence and domicile are

not the same for legal purposes, as residency alone does not
establish citizenship.”); and
WHEREAS, for Defendant, MGM Resorts International doing
business as Borgata Hotel, Casino & Spa, Plaintiff must identify
what type of entities Borgata and MGM Resorts International are
(for example, whether they are a corporation, limited liability
company, or some other form), and accordingly plead the
4

citizenship of those entities; and
WHEREAS, for a corporate party, the complaint must identify
its state of incorporation and its principal place of business,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be
a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been
incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its
principal place of business . . . .”); S. Freedman & Co., Inc.
v. Raab, 180 F. App’x 316, 320 (3d Cir. 2006) (explaining that
“[i]n order to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction, a
complaint must set forth with specificity a corporate party’s
state of incorporation and its principal place of business,” and
affirming dismissal of complaint alleging that corporation
maintained “a principal place of business,” rather than “its
principal place of business”); and
WHEREAS, the citizenship of an LLC is determined by the
citizenship of each of its members, 1 not where it has a principal

1

The law also requires that if a member of an LLC is another
LLC, a corporation, or a limited partnership, then each member
of the LLC, or each partner in the limited partnership, must be
identified and its citizenship pled, and for any such member or
partner that is a corporation, the state of incorporation and
its principal place of business must similarly be identified and
pled. See Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420 (“[W]here an LLC has, as
one of its members, another LLC, ‘the citizenship of
unincorporated associations must be traced through however many
layers of partners or members there may be’ to determine the
citizenship of the LLC.”)(quoting Hart v. Terminex Int'l, 336
F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir. 2003)).

5

place of business, or under which state’s law it is established,
see Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418
(3d Cir. 2010); Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d
99, 102 (3d Cir. 2015) (“We hold that a plaintiff need not
affirmatively allege the citizenship of each member of an
unincorporated association in order to get past the pleading
stage. Instead, if the plaintiff is able to allege in good
faith, after a reasonable attempt to determine the identities of
the members of the association, that it is diverse from all of
those members, its complaint will survive a facial challenge to
subject-matter jurisdiction.”);
THEREFORE,
IT IS on this

28th

day of

November

, 2017

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application (Docket No. 1-2)
be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed
to file Plaintiff's complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to amend
his complaint to properly comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

If

Plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

6