United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action involves tort and contract claims relating to the sale
of Clover Valley Ranch in Elko County, Nevada. (ECF No. 23 at
MOTION TO DISMISS
Gaetan Pelletier initiated this action against a number of
defendants in his Complaint dated September 5, 2017. (ECF No.
1.) Defendant Robert J. Wines then moved to dismiss the
Complaint for insufficient service of process and defect in
venue. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff remedied these deficiencies,
and Defendant Wines acknowledged that his motion to dismiss
is now moot. (ECF No. 21 at 2.) Accordingly, Defendant
Wines' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is denied as moot.
MOTIONS FOR DEMAND FOR SECURITY OF COSTS
Wines also filed a motion demanding security of costs (ECF
No. 15) pursuant to NRS § 18.130(1), which provides:
When a plaintiff in an action resides out of the State, or is
a foreign corporation, security for the costs and charges
which may be awarded against such plaintiff may be required
by the defendant, by the filing and service on plaintiff of a
written demand therefor within the time limited for answering
the complaint. When so required, all proceedings in the
action shall be stayed until an undertaking, executed by two
or more persons, be filed with the clerk, to the effect that
they will pay such costs and charges as may be awarded
against the plaintiff by judgment, or in the progress of the
action, not exceeding the sum of $500; or in lieu of such
undertaking, the plaintiff may deposit $500, lawful money,
with the clerk of the court, subject to the same conditions
as required for the undertaking. The plaintiff, upon filing
the undertaking or depositing the security, shall notify the
defendant of such filing or deposit, and the defendant, after
receipt of such notice, shall have 10 days or the period
allowed under N.R.C.P. 12(a), whichever is longer, in which
to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint.
then filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
(ECF No. 23), which triggered an amended motion demanding
security of costs by Defendant Wines (ECF No. 25). Defendant
William V. Rodriguez joined Defendant Wines' amended
motion demanding security of costs. (ECF No. 31.) Additional
Defendants (James W. Middagh and Mortensen Partners) filed
their own motion demanding security of costs. (ECF No. 24.)
filed one response (ECF No. 29) to the three motions
demanding security of costs (ECF Nos. 15, 24, 25). Plaintiff
also filed a motion to deny security of costs (ECF No. 32),
which is improper because it constitutes a second response to
the motions demanding security of costs. The Court strikes
that motion and all responsive briefing (ECF Nos. 35, 38, 39,
40, 41, 42). Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting
judicial notice that amounts to a third response to the
motions demanding security of costs. (ECF No. 44.) The Court
strikes this motion as well.
Ninth Circuit recognizes that “federal district courts
have inherent power to require plaintiffs to post security
for costs.” Simulnet E. Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel
Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1994).
“It is the policy of [this Court] to enforce the
requirements of NRS § 18.130 in diversity
actions.” Feagins v. Trump Org., No.
2:11-cv-01121-GMN-GWF, 2012 WL 925027, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar.
19, 2012) (citing Hamar v. Hyatt Corp., 98 F.R.D.
305, 305-06 (D. Nev. 1983)).
appears to have attempted to post security for costs with the
Court, though prematurely. (ECF No. 29 at 1.) Nevertheless,
Plaintiff essentially argues that Defendants seek security
for costs in bad faith. (See Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that Defendants have acted in bad
faith by seeking security for costs; he has alleged no facts
to support this assertion. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Defendants' demands for security of costs should be
Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited
to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed
these arguments and cases and determines that they do not
warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the
motions before the Court.
therefore ordered that Defendant Wines' amended motion
for demand for security of costs (ECF No. 25) is granted.
Defendant Wines' initial motion for demand for security
of costs (ECF No. 15) is denied as moot. Defendant Wines'
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is also denied as moot.
Defendant William V. Rodriguez's ...