3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 JIAN HU, Case No. 2:25-cv-00320-MMD-NJK
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ARIA RESORT & CASINO LLC, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Jian Hu brings this action against Defendants Aria Resort & Casino 13 LLC and MGM Resorts International, asserting a variety of civil and criminal causes of 14 action arising from her alleged wrongful termination as a poker dealer. (ECF No. 6 15 (“Complaint”).) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 50 (“Motion”).)1 For the 16 reasons explained below, the Court grants the Motion. 17 II. BACKGROUND2 18 Plaintiff was a poker dealer working under the employment of Defendant Aria, 19 starting from November 28, 2018 and ending on August 24, 2023. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) She 20 took a month-long vacation, and when she returned to work on August 17, 2023, she was 21 escorted to a meeting with Poker Operation Director Ryan Kirk, Surveillance Officer Beau, 22 and interpreter Kitty Cheng. (Id.) At this meeting, Plaintiff was asked about what 23 happened when she was dealing at table 20 on July 19, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiff explained that 24 a player had given her a “pre-tip” of $20 in chips, but the player changed his mind after 25 26 1Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 63) and Defendants replied (ECF No. 68). The Court 27 denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 74) because the Court finds further briefing to be unnecessary. 28 2The following facts are adapted from the Complaint, though the allegations are 2 Plaintiff of lying and said that after the July 19 incident, they had discovered that Plaintiff 3 took $200 in tips from the pot during that last week. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff said that she took 4 pre-tips, which were a part of her legal income. (Id.) Plaintiff said that other dealers took 5 pre-tips and questioned why she was the only one accused, but Plaintiff didn’t receive 6 any response. (Id.) 7 Plaintiff alleges that the practice of taking pre-tips is an “unwritten rule and common 8 practice” in most casinos including Aria. (Id.) She also disputes that she was working on 9 the day of July 19, 2023. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff was subsequently discharged from Aria. (Id. 10 at 6.) On or about July 26, 2023, Defendants falsely reported Plaintiff’s alleged theft to 11 the Nevada Gaming Control Board, leading to the revocation of her gaming card and 12 termination from multiple casino jobs. (Id. at 28.) When she applied for unemployment 13 benefits with the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation 14 (“DETR”), her claim was denied because Defendants falsely accused her of misconduct. 15 (Id. at 28-29.) Plaintiff suspected that she was retaliated against by Defendants, who 16 fabricated evidence and manipulated videos to unjustly terminate her. (Id. at 11.) 17 Plaintiff’s 64-page Complaint contains thirteen nearly incomprehensible causes of 18 action brought under multiple legal theories and statutes that do not create causes of 19 action, including state and federal criminal statutes and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 11. (Id. at 32-59.) 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 24 on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot 26 prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle them to relief. See Morley 27 v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the Court takes 28 as true all allegations of material fact in the complaint and construes them in the light 2 1996). While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 3 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. See Bell Atl. 4 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Moreover, allegations of a pro se 5 complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 6 See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). 7 The Court generally agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim 8 that would entitle her to relief in her Complaint, and that Plaintiff does not make clear 9 whom plaintiff is suing for what wrongs. (ECF No. 50 at 8.) Regarding Plaintiff’s claims 10 brought under criminal statutes, criminal statutes provide no basis for civil liability unless 11 the statute explicitly provides for one. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th 12 Cir. 1980). Since Plaintiff’s claims based on federal and state criminal statutes fail to state 13 a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court grants Defendants Motion and denies 14 these claims with prejudice as amendment would be futile. 15 As to Plaintiff’s remaining claims, although the Court must construe Plaintiff’s pro 16 se Complaint liberally, “a liberal interpretation of a [pro se] civil rights complaint may not 17 supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Pena v. Gardner, 976 18 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 19 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court can neither 20 discern Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action nor understand what facts are alleged in 21 support of thereof. Plaintiff may have claims, but the Court cannot read-in such claims for 22 her. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion but grants Plaintiff leave to amend 23 to re-allege her remaining claims. 24 Although the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend, it does not grant Plaintiff leave 25 to amend in any way that she sees fit. The Court informs Plaintiff that under Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading need only “a short and plain statement of the claim 27 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). She need not and 28 should not allege very many facts. Rather, in each claim, she should allege facts sufficient 2 Plaintiff attached a great deal of documentation to her Complaint (ECF No. 6 at 65-101) 3 and that large sections of the Complaint appear to be copy and pasted from ChatGPT (id. 4 at 7-9; 22-27). The Court advises Plaintiff that such documentation is not required at the 5 pleading stage, and that off-topic content generated by AI will not be of help to her case. 6 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she is advised that an amended 7 complaint replaces the Complaint, so the amended complaint must be complete in itself. 8 See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 9 1989) (holding that “an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. 10 Maricopa Cnty.,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 JIAN HU, Case No. 2:25-cv-00320-MMD-NJK
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ARIA RESORT & CASINO LLC, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Jian Hu brings this action against Defendants Aria Resort & Casino 13 LLC and MGM Resorts International, asserting a variety of civil and criminal causes of 14 action arising from her alleged wrongful termination as a poker dealer. (ECF No. 6 15 (“Complaint”).) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 50 (“Motion”).)1 For the 16 reasons explained below, the Court grants the Motion. 17 II. BACKGROUND2 18 Plaintiff was a poker dealer working under the employment of Defendant Aria, 19 starting from November 28, 2018 and ending on August 24, 2023. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) She 20 took a month-long vacation, and when she returned to work on August 17, 2023, she was 21 escorted to a meeting with Poker Operation Director Ryan Kirk, Surveillance Officer Beau, 22 and interpreter Kitty Cheng. (Id.) At this meeting, Plaintiff was asked about what 23 happened when she was dealing at table 20 on July 19, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiff explained that 24 a player had given her a “pre-tip” of $20 in chips, but the player changed his mind after 25 26 1Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 63) and Defendants replied (ECF No. 68). The Court 27 denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 74) because the Court finds further briefing to be unnecessary. 28 2The following facts are adapted from the Complaint, though the allegations are 2 Plaintiff of lying and said that after the July 19 incident, they had discovered that Plaintiff 3 took $200 in tips from the pot during that last week. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff said that she took 4 pre-tips, which were a part of her legal income. (Id.) Plaintiff said that other dealers took 5 pre-tips and questioned why she was the only one accused, but Plaintiff didn’t receive 6 any response. (Id.) 7 Plaintiff alleges that the practice of taking pre-tips is an “unwritten rule and common 8 practice” in most casinos including Aria. (Id.) She also disputes that she was working on 9 the day of July 19, 2023. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff was subsequently discharged from Aria. (Id. 10 at 6.) On or about July 26, 2023, Defendants falsely reported Plaintiff’s alleged theft to 11 the Nevada Gaming Control Board, leading to the revocation of her gaming card and 12 termination from multiple casino jobs. (Id. at 28.) When she applied for unemployment 13 benefits with the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation 14 (“DETR”), her claim was denied because Defendants falsely accused her of misconduct. 15 (Id. at 28-29.) Plaintiff suspected that she was retaliated against by Defendants, who 16 fabricated evidence and manipulated videos to unjustly terminate her. (Id. at 11.) 17 Plaintiff’s 64-page Complaint contains thirteen nearly incomprehensible causes of 18 action brought under multiple legal theories and statutes that do not create causes of 19 action, including state and federal criminal statutes and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 11. (Id. at 32-59.) 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling 24 on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot 26 prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle them to relief. See Morley 27 v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the Court takes 28 as true all allegations of material fact in the complaint and construes them in the light 2 1996). While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual 3 allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. See Bell Atl. 4 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Moreover, allegations of a pro se 5 complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 6 See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). 7 The Court generally agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim 8 that would entitle her to relief in her Complaint, and that Plaintiff does not make clear 9 whom plaintiff is suing for what wrongs. (ECF No. 50 at 8.) Regarding Plaintiff’s claims 10 brought under criminal statutes, criminal statutes provide no basis for civil liability unless 11 the statute explicitly provides for one. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th 12 Cir. 1980). Since Plaintiff’s claims based on federal and state criminal statutes fail to state 13 a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court grants Defendants Motion and denies 14 these claims with prejudice as amendment would be futile. 15 As to Plaintiff’s remaining claims, although the Court must construe Plaintiff’s pro 16 se Complaint liberally, “a liberal interpretation of a [pro se] civil rights complaint may not 17 supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Pena v. Gardner, 976 18 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 19 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court can neither 20 discern Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action nor understand what facts are alleged in 21 support of thereof. Plaintiff may have claims, but the Court cannot read-in such claims for 22 her. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion but grants Plaintiff leave to amend 23 to re-allege her remaining claims. 24 Although the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend, it does not grant Plaintiff leave 25 to amend in any way that she sees fit. The Court informs Plaintiff that under Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading need only “a short and plain statement of the claim 27 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). She need not and 28 should not allege very many facts. Rather, in each claim, she should allege facts sufficient 2 Plaintiff attached a great deal of documentation to her Complaint (ECF No. 6 at 65-101) 3 and that large sections of the Complaint appear to be copy and pasted from ChatGPT (id. 4 at 7-9; 22-27). The Court advises Plaintiff that such documentation is not required at the 5 pleading stage, and that off-topic content generated by AI will not be of help to her case. 6 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she is advised that an amended 7 complaint replaces the Complaint, so the amended complaint must be complete in itself. 8 See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 9 1989) (holding that “an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. 10 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with 11 prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended 12 complaint to preserve them for appeal). This means that the amended complaint must 13 contain all facts and claims and identify all defendants that she intends to sue. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 16 cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 17 determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 18 motion before the Court. 19 It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 50) is granted. 20 Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 6) is dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim. 21 Claims brought under state and federal criminal statutes are dismissed with prejudice as 22 amendment would be futile. Plaintiff has leave to amend her remaining claims. 23 It is further ordered that Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to file an 24 amended complaint. 25 It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint within 26 30 days of this order, this action will be subject to dismissal with prejudice for failure to 27 state a claim. 28 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file surreply (ECF No. 74) is 2 || denied. 3 DATED THIS 7" Day of November 2025.
5 MIRANDA M. DU 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28