United States District Court, D. Nevada
CRYSTAL CARIEGA, individually and as mother and natural guardian of SEBASTIAN CARIEGA, SAMIRA CARIEGA, minors, Plaintiffs,
CITY OF RENO, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: ECF NO. 41
WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is Plaintiffs' Motion and Application for
Public Records Request, Attorney's Fees and Costs (ECF
No. 41). Defendants City of Reno, Reno Municipal Court and
Mauricio Rojas have opposed (ECF No. 42) and Plaintiffs have
replied (ECF No. 43). After consideration of Plaintiffs'
motion, the court denies Plaintiffs' request to order
Defendants to comply with Plaintiffs' public records
action for alleged deprivation of Ms. Cariega's
constitutional rights (Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments) was commenced in the Second Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe,
Case No. CV16-01534. The complaint also included various
causes of action asserted under Nevada's common law. The
complaint was superseded by a First Amended Complaint which
was removed to the United States District Court on September
28, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The City of Reno moved to dismiss on
October 12, 2016. (ECF No. 7.) On May 8, 2017, District Judge
Miranda Du entered an order granting the City's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.
filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 31, 2017, adding two
new Defendants: the Reno Municipal Court and its Clerk
Mauricio Rojas (ECF No. 24). Plaintiffs shortly thereafter
submitted a Third Amended Complaint (which corrected a
spelling mistake) (ECF No. 30) on June 1, 2017. On June 15,
2017, Defendants City of Reno, Reno Municipal Court and
Mauricio Rojas moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 37) which is now pending before District
Judge Du, as is Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 40.) This order will address
Plaintiffs' motion and application for public records
request which Plaintiffs have submitted in accordance with
Chapter 239 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. (ECF No.
dispute as to the public records request arises whether
Plaintiffs may properly seek to enforce compliance with the
public records request in this action which is
pending before the United States District Court
(Plaintiffs' position) (ECF Nos. 41, 43), or whether the
request may only be pursued in the District Court of the
State of Nevada (Defendants' position) (ECF No. 42).
Rev. Stat. 239.011 provides in pertinent part as follows:
If a request for inspection or copying of a public book or
record open to inspection and copying is denied, the
requestor may apply to the district court in the county
in which the book or record is located for an order
permitting the requestor to inspect or copy it.[ ] (emphasis
position is that the “proper forum for her application
would be the Second Judicial District Court in and for the
County of Washoe.” (ECF No. 42 at 4.) This position
appears to be consistent with the language of the statute
which says the requestor “may apply to the district
court in the county in which the book or record is located
for an order ... .” Plaintiffs' position as
contained in their reply is that the Supplemental
Jurisdiction provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) suggests
“this court is the proper forum for claims that arise
out of the original jurisdiction of the federal court and
involve the same case or controversy as exists here.”
Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend “this court is
statutorily required to exercise jurisdiction ‘over all
other claims.' 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).” (ECF No.
43 at 2.)
deficiency with Plaintiffs' argument is that 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a) pertains to all other claims that are
so related to claims in the action within such original
(federal) jurisdiction that the “other claims”
form part of the same case or controversy under
Article 3 of the United States Constitution. Section 1367(a)
Third Amended Complaint contains no “claim”
(i.e., claims for relief) that is predicated upon a violation
of Chapter 239 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
(Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 30.)
Indeed, while Nev. Rev. Stat. 239.011 provides a mechanism to
enforce a public records request which has been denied, the
statute does not characterize it as a separate cause of
action or claim for relief for which damages may be awarded.
argue that while a district court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), it
may do so only if “the federal claim(s) were dismissed
and other compelling reasons exist for remand.” (ECF
No. 43 at 2.) (citing Executive Software v. U.S.
D.Ct., 24 F.3d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir. 1994)
(overruled on other grounds Cal. Dept. of Water Res. v.
Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.
2008)). However, the Executive Software decision
only refers to a United States District Court exercising
jurisdiction over “claims” and not collateral
enforcement of provisions contained in state law. The only
connection Plaintiffs' public records request has to the
pending litigation is that Bradley O. Van Ry, Esq., and his
co-counsel, Charles B. Woodman, Esq., made a public records
request to the City of Reno. See, Exhibit 1 to
Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 41-1). The records request
was not made by any of the Plaintiffs in this
action. This distinction further distances the
characterization of Plaintiffs' records request as a
“claim” under 28 U.S.C. §
also argue that the Plaintiffs' public records request is
a “clear abuse of the discovery process, conducted both
outside the parameters of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and well past the
established discovery cut off in this case.” Although
the court concurs that the discovery deadline (April 10,
2017) (ECF No. 14) has expired in this matter, the
court's decision herein is not ...