Tequila Brown, et al. v. American Homes 4 Rent, LP, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 26, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01166
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

7 TEQUILA BROWN, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01166-RFB-BNW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT, LP, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 14 Before the Court is the (ECF No. 28) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended 15 Complaint by Defendants American Homes 4 Rent, LP, AH4R Properties, LLC, and American 16 Homes 4 Rent Management, LLC. Also pending is Defendants’ (ECF No. 35) Motion to Strike 17 and Plaintiffs’ (ECF No. 39) Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. For the following reasons, the Court 18 grants the Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction and denies the other pending 19 Motions as moot. 20 21 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 On June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs Tequila Brown and Jaylah Brown, proceeding pro se, filed 23 their Complaint against Defendant American Homes 4 Rent, LP (“AH4RLP”), asserting claims 24 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for breach of contract, “money laundering,” and 25 pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 504. ECF No. 1. On July 19, 2024, Defendant AH4RLP filed a Motion to 26 Dismiss. ECF No. 6. On August 1, 2024 and August 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their response. On 27 August 8, 2024, Defendant AH4RLP filed its reply. ECF No. 18. 28 On September 5, 2024, Defendant AH4RLP filed a Motion to Stay Discovery, which was 1 fully briefed. ECF Nos. 16-18. On November 18, 2024, the Court granted the Motion to Stay. ECF 2 No. 21. On November 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order staying 3 discovery, which Defendant AH4RLP opposed. ECF Nos. 22, 24. 4 On November 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend their Complaint, which 5 Defendant opposed. ECF Nos. 23, 25. On December 12, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion 6 to Amend and denied the Motion for Reconsideration as moot. ECF No. 26. Plaintiffs’ First 7 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which added Defendants AH4R Properties, LLC and American 8 Homes 4 Rent Management, LLC, was filed. ECF No. 27. The FAC brings the following claims: 9 (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) “violations of Nevada property 10 law” which cites NRS 118A.390. 11 On December 26, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss the FAC. ECF No. 12 28. As of January 7, 2025, it was fully briefed. ECF Nos. 31, 32. On January 8, 2025, Plaintiffs 13 filed an additional opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the FAC without leave of Court. ECF No. 14 33. 15 On January 15, 2025, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike the supplemental 16 opposition pursuant to LR 7-2(g), which was fully briefed. ECF Nos. 35, 37, 38. Plaintiffs filed an 17 additional response to the Motion to Strike on May 19, 2025, without leave. ECF No. 43. On May 18 26, 2025, Defendants filed an additional Reply. ECF No. 44. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed 19 another supplemental response to the Motion to Strike without leave, and Defendant AH4R 20 Properties, LLC, filed another Reply. ECF Nos. 46, 47. 21 On December 30, 2024, Defendants filed a second Motion to Stay discovery. ECF No. 30. 22 Plaintiffs did not oppose the Motion, and it was granted as unopposed. ECF No. 34. Discovery is 23 stayed pending resolution of the instant Motion to Dismiss. 24 On March 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice 25 due to improper venue and equity jurisdiction.” ECF No. 39. Defendants filed an opposition. ECF 26 No. 40. Plaintiffs did not reply. 27 The Courts order on the pending Motions follows. 28 1 II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 2 The FAC alleges Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with AH4R Properties, LLC, 3 managed by American Homes 4 Rent Management, LLC, on April 25, 2020, for property located 4 at 1004 Lone Pine River Avenue, Henderson, Nevada, that they tendered lawful payments, and 5 that Defendants refused to accept payments without cause. On February 2, 2024, Defendants 6 issued an unjustified non-renewal/lease termination notice. Defendants misrepresented their intent 7 to honor the lease terms and engaged in deceptive practices by securitizing Plaintiffs’ security 8 deposit without disclosure, unjustly profited from securitizing the security deposit, and violated 9 NRS 118A.390 by improperly handling Plaintiffs’ security deposit and issuing termination notices. 10 11 III. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Kokkonen 13 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A party alleging subject matter 14 jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. Id.; Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 15 2016). To invoke a federal court's limited subject matter jurisdiction, a complaint must provide “a 16 short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The 17 Court will accept the plaintiff's factual allegations regarding its jurisdiction as true unless they are 18 contested by the defendant. Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). A defendant 19 may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 20 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate if the complaint, considered in its entirety, fails to 21 allege facts on its face that are sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 22 Federal question jurisdiction vests federal courts with authority to adjudicate civil claims 23 “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See Mims v. Arrow Fin. 24 Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 371 (2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). “A case arise[es] under federal 25 law within the meaning of § 1331 ... if a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law 26 creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of 27 a substantial question of federal law.” Cook Inlet Region, Inc. v. Rude, 690 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th 28 Cir. 2012) (citing Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006). 1 Diversity jurisdiction vests federal courts with jurisdiction over civil cases with complete diversity 2 of citizenship, meaning “each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the 3 defendants” and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 4 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 5 6 IV. DISCUSSION 7 As discussed below, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and 8 therefore dismisses this case without prejudice and denies all pending Motions as moot. 9 A. Federal Question Jurisdiction 10 First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ FAC, construed liberally given Plaintiffs’ pro se 11 status,1 contains no cause of action under federal law, nor do Plaintiffs’ common law claims for 12 fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, or for violation of Nevada Revised Statute 13 118A.390, depend on the resolution of a “substantial question of federal law.” Cook Inlet Region, 14 Inc., 690 F.3d at 1127. Plaintiffs’ Opposition asserts that their claims regarding Defendants’ 15 “improper securitization” of their security deposits constitutes a violation of their due process 16 rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Court can only consider the face of Plaintiffs’ 17 operative complaint in evaluating their invocation of federal question jurisdiction, and the FAC 18 raises no Fourteenth Amendment claim, nor facts that would give rise to such a claim. Id. Leave 19 to amend to assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants would be futile, because 20 Defendants are private parties, not governmental entities, and nothing in the FAC or Plaintiffs’ 21 briefing suggests their proposed constitutional claim could satisfy the state action doctrine. See 22 Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 877 F.3d 833, 837-838 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining the state action 23 doctrine, which requires that a constitutional claim against a private party be based on actions 24 “fairly attributable to the State”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, by 25 withdrawing the federal causes of action Plaintiffs asserted in their original complaint, Plaintiffs 26 have waived them. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that 27 28 1 The Court must hold pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). 1 a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the 2 amended complaint). 3 B. Diversity Jurisdiction 4 Plaintiffs’ FAC also fails to establish diversity jurisdiction, because it does not allege that 5 Plaintiffs, as citizens of Nevada, are diverse as to each Defendant. Bautista v. pan Am. World 6 Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 553 (1987) (“The essential elements of diversity jurisdiction, 7 including the diverse residence of all parties, must be affirmatively alleged in the pleadings.”). 8 Plaintiffs’ Opposition asserts that Defendant AH4RLP is a citizen of California, Texas, and Florida 9 because they engage in business operations in those states. Plaintiffs appear to misunderstand how 10 the citizenship of a partnership is determined for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Johnson v. 11 Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] partnership is a 12 citizen of all of the states of which its partners are citizens . . .). And again, the Court can only 13 consider Plaintiffs’ invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction based on the face of their operative 14 complaint, which fails to make any allegation regarding Defendants’ citizenship. Id. 15 Defendants assert that AH4RLP is a citizen of Nevada because its sole general 16 partner/member is a publicly traded real estate investment trust with shareholders who are citizens 17 of every state, including Nevada. See Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 577 U.S. 378, 18 381-82 (2016) (holding that a real estate investment trust organized under Maryland law possesses 19 the citizenship of its shareholders, who are deemed members of the unincorporated organization). 20 Because AH4RLP has disclosed it is “a limited partnership whose sole general partner is American 21 Homes 4 Rent, a publicly traded real estate investment trust, registered in the State of Maryland,” 22 the Court finds it is a Nevada citizen pursuant to Americold Realty Trust. See ECF No. 11. 23 Plaintiffs Opposition does not contest Defendants’ assertion that AH4R Properties, LLC, 24 and American Homes 4 Rent Management, LLC are also Nevada citizens, because their principal 25 places of business are in Las Vegas, Nevada. However, Defendants are incorrect about how the 26 citizenship of a limited liability company is determined. Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899 (holding that 27 “like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”). 28 The Court cannot determine the citizenship of the LLC Defendants, because the citizenship of each 1 of their members is not clear from the record. But regardless of the LLC Defendants’ citizenship, 2 complete diversity does not exist due to AH4RLP’s status as a Nevada citizen. The Court therefore 3 finds leave to amend to cure diversity of citizenship would be futile. Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. 4 Stanewich, 142 F.3d 1145, 1148, n.3 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting leave to amend to cure insufficient 5 allegations of diversity of citizenship should be supported by prima facie proof of diversity of 6 citizenship); cf. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) 7 (holding that where defendants do not contest diversity of citizenship, a court should afford leave 8 to amend where insufficient allegations of citizenship could be cured). 9 C. Leave to Amend 10 Plaintiffs Opposition seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. As discussed 11 above, the Court finds amendment would be futile to cure the jurisdictional defects in Plaintiffs’ 12 FAC. With regards to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have waived their originally brought 13 federal causes of action by withdrawing them in their FAC, which was filed in response to 14 Defendants’ first motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In their 15 request for a second opportunity to amend, Plaintiffs have not identified any other federal cause of 16 action or question of federal law they might assert against Defendants based on the alleged facts 17 underlying their suit. Likewise, the Court finds the deficiency with regards to diversity jurisdiction 18 cannot be cured due to AH4RLP’s uncontested Nevada citizenship. Accordingly, the Court finds 19 leave to amend is not warranted in this case. See United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 20 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Leave to amend is warranted if the deficiencies can be cured with additional 21 allegations that are consistent with the challenged pleading and that do not contradict the 22 allegations in the original complaint.”). 23 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it dismisses this case without prejudice, 24 but without leave to amend. See Frigard v. U.S., 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Ordinarily, a 25 case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be dismissed without prejudice so that 26 a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent court.”). 27 /// 28 /// 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ (ECF No. 28) 3 | Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to amend, for want of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending (ECF Nos. 35, 39) Motions are 6| DENIED as moot. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 DATED: September 26, 2025. 9 10 AS RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-7-