Adegboruwa v. Agwara

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Oluwole Adegboruwa, Case No. 2:25-cv-00792-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 6 v.

7 Liborius I. Agwara, et al., [ECF No. 8]

8 Defendants 9 10 Plaintiff Oluwole Adegboruwa brings this lawsuit against defendant Liborius Agwara 11 and the Law Offices of Libo Agwara, Ltd. alleging fraud, breach of contract, unlawful practice of 12 law, conversion, and professional misconduct. Compl., ECF No. 5. In screening Adeboruwa’s 13 complaint, United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah found that this court lacks subject 14 matter jurisdiction over Adeboruwa’s claims because they arise under state law, but more 15 notedly, that Adegboruwa has not met his burden of establishing the amount in controversy 16 exceeds $75,000. Order and R&R, ECF No. 8. She therefore recommends that I dismiss the 17 complaint without leave to amend as diversity jurisdiction cannot be established. Id. at 5. 18 Adegboruwa had until August 13, 2025, to file any specific, written objections to the 19 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Id. at 5–6 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2 (stating 20 that parties wishing to object to the findings and recommendations must file specific written 21 objections within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). The time to object 22 has passed now and Adegboruwa has not responded in any way. It is well-established that “no 23 review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 24 filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 25 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 26 1 Although de novo review is not required, I nonetheless conduct one here. In the R@R, 2| Judge Youchah reasons that, although Adegboruwa “alleges actual damages in the amount of 3]| $35,000, the [ ] facts fail to persuade the Court that Plaintiff's claim for $500,000 in punitive 4|| damages is sufficiently plausible to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.” ECF No. 8 at 4. Punitive damages may be considered part of the amount in controversy if they are properly 6]| pled. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001). Courts recognize that to include 7|| punitive damages in the amount in controversy, “the party asserting jurisdiction must establish 8|| that punitive damages would be permitted under the applicable state law based on the conduct alleged.” In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg, Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59413, 2019 WL 1501577, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019). Under Nevada law, punitive damages are only awarded “when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is 12]| ‘guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 138 P.3d 433, 450 (2006). Here, as Judge Youchah found, Adegboruwa’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim for fraud, oppression, or malice and are therefore insufficient to support a 15|| claim for punitive damages. I thus find that the magistrate judge correctly concludes that this 16|| court lacks diversity jurisdiction. 17 Conclusion 18 For those reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 8] is accepted and adopted, and this case is dismissed without 20]| prejudice, but without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly, and to close this case. / ) 22 Dated: August 26, 2025 LZ

23 tk Gq Cristing’D. S 24 U ted States District Judge 25 lL