Presently before the court is the matter of Mellor v. West Trop Storage, LLC, et al., case number 2:13-cv-01502-JCM-VCF. Both parties have filed numerous motions in this case.
Plaintiff has filed motions for summary judgment (doc. # 28), for leave to amend his complaint (doc. # 39), for sanctions (doc. # 40), for district judge to reconsider pretrial order (doc. # 41), for emergency continuance of trial date (doc. # 51), and to strike defendants’ motions in limine (doc. # 52). Defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. # 30), a combined response to plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend, for sanctions, and for district judge to reconsider (doc. # 43), and a response to plaintiff’s motions to strike (doc. # 52). Defendants did not respond to plaintiff’s emergency motion to continue trial date. Plaintiff filed replies to defendants’ oppositions to summary judgment, leave to amend, and for district judge to reconsider. (Docs. ## 37, 44).
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. # 32), and three motions in limine (docs. ## 46, 47, 48). Plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. # 38), and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 42). Plaintiff did not file responses to defendants motions in limine.
This matter arises out of a contract dispute. On or about April 26, 2010, plaintiff entered into a rental lease agreement with defendant to lease a storage unit located at 9645 West Tropicana, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Doc. # 1, ¶¶ 6-7). Plaintiff stored his personal property, including rare books, original art, gold and silver coins, manuscripts, photographs, televisions, assorted electronics, and memorabilia. The lease agreement specifically directs that the “Occupant agrees not to store collectables, heirlooms, jewelry, works of art or any property having special sentimental value to Occupant.” (Doc. # 32-1, ¶ 10). Plaintiff values his stored property at nearly $1, 000, 000. (Doc. # 1, ¶ 3).
At some point during the lease term plaintiff became delinquent on his payments. (See doc. # 1, ¶14). When plaintiff called to make arrangements to bring his account current and pay the outstanding amounts owed to defendants, plaintiff was informed that the contents of his storage space had been sold at auction. (Doc. # 1, ¶¶ 14-15). Plaintiff alleges that defendants never contacted him to give notice that his property was scheduled to be auctioned. (Doc. # 1, ¶ 15).
Plaintiff brings claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and violations of NRS §§ 108.476, 108.4763, and 108.477.
As an initial matter, the court acknowledges that though plaintiff was represented by an attorney from the commencement of this matter on August 21, 2013, through January 17, 2014, plaintiff has filed the instant motions pro se. Plaintiff’s pro se filings are held to less stringent standards. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed . . .”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986).
A) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (doc. # 39)
In federal court, leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply when granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Court explained: “[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Id. at 182.
In addition to the Rule 15 requirements, the local rules require a plaintiff to submit a proposed, amended complaint along with its motion to amend. LR 15-1(a). Plaintiff has not complied with this rule and has failed to attach a proposed amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint will be denied.
The court notes that, even if plaintiff’s motion were not procedurally deficient, it would also deny plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend for substantive reasons. Plaintiff’s arguments addressing what he seeks to amend would not cure the amount in controversy deficiency. This issue ...