Correos v. Western Progressive - Nevada - Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00593
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 HAROLD SALADAR CORREOS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00593-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 WESTERN PROGRESSIVE-NEVADA, INC., NEVADA LEGAL NEWS, HOME 8 MEANS NEVADA INC., KRISTIN SCHULER-HINTZ, MATTHEW DAYTON, 9 MICHAEL W. CHEN, RAMIR M. HERNANDEZ, EDDIE R. JIMENEZ, 10 ALLIANCE BANCORP, IMPACT FUNDING CORP, DEUTSCHE BANK NTC, 11 OCWEN, PHH MORTGAGE,

12 Defendants.

13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions to Vacate Auction Sell and Motion 15 for Order for Permanent Dismissal with Prejudice. ECF Nos. 3 and 4. 16 I. Plaintiff Fails to Assert a Basis for Jurisdiction 17 The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute on which 18 it is asked to act. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction 19 and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 20 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the 21 contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 22 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 23 proving that the case is properly in federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 24 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). If 25 the Court lacks subject matter-jurisdiction, an action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 26 Federal district courts “have original [subject matter] jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 27 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, ] Federal district courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions in diversi 2 || cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matt 3 || 1s between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires comple 4 || diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of tl 5 || defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal cout 6 || have the jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction. Special Investments, Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc 7 || 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). A court may raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction st 8 || sponte, and it must dismiss a case if it determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. /d.; Fed. | 9 || Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Here, Plaintiff, a Nevada resident, states claims against Nevada Legal News, at 10 || Home Means Nevada, Inc., among others. Nevada Legal News and Home Means Nevada, Inc. a 11 |} Nevada formed entities. For this reason, Plaintiff cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction bas 12 |} on the diversity of the parties. 13 Finally, Plaintiff must serve Defendants with his Complaint before he may seek relief fro 14 || the Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 explains the process for service. The docket in th 15 || matter shows no summonses were issued and no service has been attempted on any Defendant. Ea 16 || of the entities and individuals named in Plaintiff's Complaint have Nevada business locations su 17 || that each should have a registered agent with the Nevada Secretary of State. Plaintiff may serve h 18 |} Complaint together with a summons on each of these entities through its registered agent. Un 19 || service is completed, the Court will not act on any issue raised. Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F □ 20 || 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) (a federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unle 21 || the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.). 22 || I. Order 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Vacate Auction S« 24 || and Motion for Order for Permanent Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF Nos. 3 and 4) are DENIED. 25 Dated this 27th day of April, 2023. 26 27 FLAYNGV} “ee UNITEDSTATES MAGI TE JUDGE