Mesi v. Mesi

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 20, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02183
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 ERIC THOMAS MESI, Case No. 2:19-cv-2183-KJD-DJA

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 VANESSA MARIE MESI, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Albregts’s Report and 13 Recommendation that plaintiff Thomas Mesi’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter 14 jurisdiction (ECF No. 3). Mesi has filed an opposition to the recommendation (ECF No. 4). 15 Though the time to do so has passed, none of the defendants have responded to Mesi’s 16 objections. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 17 Mesi’s objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LR IB 3-2. The Court determines that the 18 Report and Recommendation entered December 27, 2019, should be ADOPTED and 19 AFFIRMED. 20 Magistrate Judge Albregts correctly found that Mesi’s complaint does not adequately 21 plead facts to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction. R&R at 1–2. Mesi’s complaint 22 boils down to alleged bankruptcy fraud in an unrelated proceeding. Mesi’s relationship to a 23 federal question here is tenuous at best. The mere fact Mesi’s allegations relate in some way to 24 federal bankruptcy law does not automatically vest this Court with jurisdiction. A dispute 25 demands “a substantial” federal question to warrant a federal forum. See Campbell v. Aerospace 26 Corp., 123 F.3d 1308, 1315 (9th Cir. 1997). Such a federal issue is not present here. 27 Even if there were a federal question here, Mesi does not have standing to bring claims 28 for bankruptcy fraud against these defendants. In response to the Magistrate Judge’s 1 | recommendation, Mesi lists four federal statutes that he believes support federal jurisdiction here: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, The Stored Communications Act, The Electronic 3 Communications Privacy Act, and The Defend Trade Secrets Act. See P.’s Obj. to R&R 3-4, 4) 4. However, none of those acts allow a private citizen to bring criminal charges against 5 | another private citizen. Mesi admits that his complaint is not a garden-variety civil case, “but a 6 | Federal Indictment.” Id. at 4 (internal quotations and emphases omitted). Mesi lacks standing to 7 | bring bankruptcy fraud charges and has not demonstrated that this Court has jurisdiction over his 8 | claims. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 10 | Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED; 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. All other motions are DENIED as moot. 13 | Dated this 20th day of February, 2020. 14 om 15 Bel Kent J. Dawson 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-