Adegboruwa v. Agwara

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * Case No. 2:25-cv-00792-CDS-EJY 4 OLUWOLE ADEGBORUWA, ORDER 5 Plaintiff, AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v. 7 LIBORIUS I. AGWARA, et al., 8 Defendant. [9] 10 On July 8, 2025, the Court entered a Minute Order granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed 11 in forma pauperis. ECF No. 6. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s Complaint. 12 I. Screening Standard 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), the reviewing Court must identify any cognizable claims and 14 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 15 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(e)(2). 17 Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 18 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A federal court must dismiss a claim if the action “is frivolous or 19 malicious[,] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[,] or seeks monetary relief against 20 a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). The standard for dismissing 21 a complaint for failure to state a claim is established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 22 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend 23 the complaint with directions to cure its deficiencies unless it is clear from the face of the complaint 24 that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 , 1106 (9th 25 Cir. 1995). In making this determination, the Court treats all allegations of material fact stated in 26 the complaint as true, and the court construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 27 Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 1 Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted 2 by lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does 3 not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must plead more than mere labels and conclusions. 4 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action is insufficient. Id. In addition, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying 6 pleadings [allegations] that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not entitled to the 7 assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “While legal conclusions can 8 provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When 9 there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine 10 whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint 11 states a plausible claim for relief ... [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to 12 draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. 13 Finally, all or part of a complaint may be dismissed sua sponte if the plaintiff’s claims lack 14 an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are 15 untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a 16 legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations 17 (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 , 327–28 (1989); 18 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 II. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Supporting the Exercise of Diversity Jurisdiction. 20 Plaintiff, housed in the federal prison in San Pedro, California, sues Liborius I. Agwara 21 (“Defendant”), who he identifies as an attorney with offices in Nevada. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff 22 claims he contracted with Defendant for representation in a criminal matter paying Defendant 23 $35,000 in exchange for such representation. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges Defendant did not enter a 24 notice of appearance in the criminal matter and this failure caused him prejudice and emotional 25 distress. Id. Plaintiff’s claims for relief include fraud, breach of contract, unlawful practice of law, 26 conversion, and professional misconduct. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the 27 amount of $35,000, and punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 based on harm to Plaintiff’s 1 Each of Plaintiff’s causes of action arise under state law. See, for example, Sivil v. Country 2 Mutual Insurance Company, 619 F.Supp.3d 1072 (D. Nev. 2022) (recognizing breach of contract as 3 a state law claim); Brown v. Bettinger, Case No. 2:15-cv-00331-APG-PAL, 2015 WL 4162505 , at 4 *6 (D. Nev. July 8, 2015) (recognizing fraud as a state law claim); Dundas v. Doyle, Case No. 2:115 cv-02107-KJD-PAL, 2012 WL 7018051 , at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2012) (recognizing legal 6 malpractice as a state law claim); Uston v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 448 F.Supp. 116, 120 (D. Nev. 1978) 7 (recognizing intentional infliction of emotional distress as a state law claim). Plaintiff makes no 8 mention of, nor does he suggest, a violation of federal law or his constitutional rights. ECF No. 19 1, generally. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims may proceed in federal court only if he establishes diversity 10 jurisdiction. 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a), a federal district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action 12 where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy 13 exceeds $75,000. With respect to party citizenship, an individual is deemed to be a citizen of the 14 state where they are domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 15 1983). The Court will presume, for sake of this Order only, that Plaintiff is a citizen of California 16 and Defendant is a citizen of Nevada. With respect to the amount in controversy, “the sum claimed 17 by the plaintiff [in the complaint] controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” Ibarra v. 18 Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015) (brackets in original, internal quotation 19 marks omitted). However, a “facially implausible figure does not satisfy the amount in controversy 20 requirement.” Parker v. U.S. Bank Tr., N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-09697-ODW-RAOx, 2020 WL 21 7479633, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2020). 22 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing the amount in 23 controversy exceeds $75,000. First, the Court takes judicial notice of USA v. Adegboruwa, Case 24 No. 2:19-mj-00388-VCF-1, the only case in the District of Nevada in which Defendant represented 25 Plaintiff.1 The docket in that case demonstrates that Defendant filed a notice of appearance on behalf 26 of Plaintiff on May 30, 2019. Id. ECF No. 7. Thereafter, all proceedings focused on Plaintiff’s [27] 1 Federal courts may “take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 1 transport from the District of Nevada to the District of Utah—the district from which his criminal 2 proceeding originated and in which those proceedings took place. Id. ECF Nos. 2, 10, 12. Second, 3 proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah are confirmed through a review of four 4 criminal cases bearing Plaintiff’s name, two of which demonstrate complete criminal proceedings.2 5 Defendant represented Plaintiff in none of those proceedings. See dockets of cases listed in n.2. 6 Thus, the objective verifiable facts from this District and the District of Utah demonstrate Defendant 7 filed a notice of appearance in the only case in which he represented Plaintiff after which the sole 8 activity was transfer of Plaintiff to Utah where he was represented by other counsel. Case No. 2:199 mj-00388-VCF-1, ECF Nos. 7-12; n.2 herein. 10 While Plaintiff alleges actual damage in the amount of $35,000, the above facts fail to 11 persuade the Court that Plaintiff’s claim for $500,000 in punitive damages is sufficiently plausible 12 to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. While Nevada statutory law would allow a 13 maximum punitive damages award of $300,000 (NRS 42.005(1)(b)), the mere possibility of such an 14 award is insufficient to establish the necessary amount in controversy. Redford v. Greendot Corp., 15 Case No. CV 20-3260-JGB-PVC, 2021 WL 785147 , at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2021) (“[W]hen the 16 amount in controversy depends largely on alleged punitive damages, the court will scrutinize a claim 17 more closely than a claim for actual damages to ensure Congress’s limits on diversity jurisdiction 18 are properly observed .... The mere possibility of a punitive damages award is insufficient to prove 19 that the amount in controversy requirement has been met.”) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and 20 ellipsis omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 784955 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021)). 21 Further, “[c]ourts increasingly view punitive damages claims with skepticism, especially if asserted 22 for the apparent purpose of meeting jurisdictional minimums.” Jackson v. Frank, Case No. C1223 03975 HRL, 2012 WL 6096905 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012). 24 The dockets reflecting proceeding in Nevada and Utah demonstrate Plaintiff’s factual 25 allegations do not support the wrongdoing alleged and, therefore, fail to establish anything more 26 than mere possibility of an award of punitive damages. Consequently, the Court finds Plaintiff fails [27] 2 See U.S. District Court for the District of Utah Case Nos. 2:19-cr-00260-JNP (filed July 10, 2019 and closed 1 to establish the amount in controversy necessary to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction. For this 2 reason, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this dispute and Plaintiff’s Complaint should not proceed 3 in this Court. 4 IV. Order 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1-1, should be separately 6 filed on the docket. 7 V. Recommendation 8 Because all of Plaintiff’s claims arise under state law and a primary fact on which Plaintiff 9 relies appears in the Court’s records to be inaccurate, the Court recommends dismissal of this matter 10 without prejudice, but without leave to amend in federal court as diversity jurisdiction cannot be 11 established. Dismissal without prejudice will allow Plaintiff the opportunity, if he so chooses, to 12 proceed in state court with his common law claims. 13 Dated this 30th day of July, 2025. [15] ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [17] 18 NOTICE 19 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in 20 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held 21 that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file 22 objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also 23 held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address 24 and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 25 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 26 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 , 454 (9th Cir. 1983).