Woods v. Investment Realty Advisors

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case No. 2:24-cv-00477-CDS-NJK Plaintiff(s), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.

Defendant(s). The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff crosses out the section of the complaint in which to show that jurisdiction exists. Docket No. 1-1 at 3. Moreover, Plaintiff’s case relates to whether his apartment rental deposit of $700 should have been returned. See, e.g., id. at 4-5. The complaint identifies no federal cause of action or federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint identifies no basis on which to find that the exercise of diversity jurisdiction is proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requiring, inter alia, an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000); but see Docket No. 1-1 at 4 (identifying $700 as the amount in controversy). 1} Moreover, there appears to be no plausible basis on which to allege jurisdiction, so amendment of the complaint is not warranted. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED for lack of 4] subject matter jurisdiction and that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) be 5], DENIED as moot. Dated: April 10, 2024 UD 0) A A Unites xcs Magistrate Judge This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 12] to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 13] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 14] days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 16] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).