Phanthay v. Circus Circus Hotel & Casino

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 SYSONGKHAM PHANTHAY, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01558-BNW 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER 6 v. 7 CIRCUS CIRCUS HOTEL & CASINO, 8 Defendant. [9] 10 Before the Court are eight Motions for Demand for Security of Costs: four from 11 Defendant Circus Circus Hotel & Casino, and four from former Defendant Phil Ruffin. ECF 12 Nos. 14-21. Phil Ruffin has been terminated as a Defendant from this case, therefore his Motions 13 are moot and are thus denied. ECF No. 10. 14 Defendant seeks an order from the Court for Plaintiffs to post a cost bond pursuant to 15 N.R.S § 18.130(1) as Plaintiffs are not residents of Nevada. Because each of the Plaintiffs here 16 have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, they are exempt from paying security 17 costs and Defendant’s Motions are therefore denied. 18 Under N.R.S. § 18.130(1), “When a plaintiff in an action resides out of the State, or is a 19 foreign corporation, security for the costs and charges which may be awarded against such 20 plaintiff may be required by the defendant.” The Ninth Circuit has stated the following with 21 respect to a demand for security for costs in federal court: 22 There is no specific provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to security for costs. However, the federal district courts have inherent power to 23 require plaintiffs to post security for costs. Typically federal courts, either by rule or by case-to-case determination, follow the forum state’s practice with regard to 24 security for costs, as they did prior to the federal rules; this is especially common when a non-resident party is involved. [25] Simulnet E. Assoc. v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573 , 574 (citation and internal [26] quotations omitted). While the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has not [27] adopted a specific court rule with respect to security for costs, it has applied N.R.S. § 18.130 in 1 | diversity-jurisdiction cases. Hamar v. Hyatt Corp., 98 F.R.D. 305 (D. Nev. 1983) (“It has been the policy of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to enforce the requirements of N.R.S. 18.130 in diversity actions.”’). 4 Here, the complaint was filed based on diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 1-1. 5 | However, Plaintiffs have all been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. 6 | Parties who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis are explicitly exempt not just 7 | from prepayment of fees, but from prepayment of security costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1); see also 8 | Arrambide v. St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc., 647 F. Supp. 1148, 1149 (D. Nev. 1986) (stating that 9 | plaintiffs who prove their indigent status in detail by affidavit are exempt from paying security 10 | costs); Feagins v. Trump Org., No. 11-cv-01121, 2012 WL 925027 , at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 11 | 2012) (stating that plaintiffs who are granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis are exempt from 12 | paying security costs). 13 As stated above, each of the Plaintiffs in this case have been granted leave to proceed in 14 | forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. Therefore, they are exempt from paying security costs. As a result, 15 | Defendant’s Motions are denied. 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Circus Circus Hotel & Casino’s 17 Motions for Demand for Security of Costs (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 18, 20) are DENIED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that former Defendant Phil Ruffin’s Motions for Demand 19 | for Security of Costs CECF Nos. 15, 17, 19, 21) are DENIED. [20] 21 DATED this 19th day of November 2024. [22] 23 _ Fig la wan BRENDA WEKSLER □ 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE