Desormeaux v. Auto Rental, LLC

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 MONIQUE DESORMEAUX, Case No. 2:25-cv-01352-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 AUTO RENTAL, LLC, 8 Defendant. — 9 — 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), which was filed 11 after the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s 12 original Complaint finding she established neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over 13 Defendant. ECF No. 5. The Court screens Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint under the standard 14 previously applied. Id. 15 I. Plaintiff Fails to Establish Diversity Jurisdiction 16 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserts she may proceed in the U.S. District Court for the 17 District of Nevada under diversity jurisdiction because she is a resident of Nevada and Defendant 18 Auto Rental, LLC is a Georgia Corporation. ECF No. 11 at 1-2. With respect to the events 19 underlying this controversy, Plaintiff continues to assert she rented a vehicle from Auto Rental, LLC 20 on two occasions—once in Georgia and a second time in Oklahoma—with both rentals resulting in 21 the loss of her personal possessions after the vehicles were returned to Auto Rental by a third party. 22 Id. at 2-4. Plaintiff concludes the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because, when the cars 23 were repossessed, she suffered the loss of $535 in cash, laptops, hand-held voice recorders, and large 24 amounts of personal property that was never returned. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff offers nothing in her 25 Amended Complaint establishing the value of any tangible property she alleges was lost. 26 In order to establish diversity jurisdiction Plaintiff must demonstrate the amount in 27 controversy exceeds $75,000 and the matter is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. 2 McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal cite omitted). “A 3 speculative argument regarding the potential value of the award is insufficient” to establish diversity 4 jurisdiction. Conrad Associates v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 994 F.Supp. 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 5 1998). In GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Martinez, Case No. CV 10–02882 MMM (PLAx), 2010 WL 6 1931268, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2010), the court held the amount in controversy requirement was 7 not met because there were “no facts or evidence corroborating” the damages assertion. See also 8 Choudhuri v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 15-cv-03608-VC, 2016 WL 3212454 , at *3 (N.D. 9 Cal. June 10, 2016) (Plaintiff’s “bald assertion that the amount in controversy is ‘approximately $1 10 million’ is insufficient to establish” an amount that “actually exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”). 11 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to adequately demonstrate the amount in controversy 12 exceeds $75,000. Even without considering whether Plaintiff establishes general personal 13 jurisdiction over Auto Rental, a separate issue discussed below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations 14 regarding damages are unsupported by facts and, thus, she has not established the jurisdictional 15 amount she must to support the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. In the absence of diversity 16 jurisdiction, and noting Plaintiff’s claims are all related to the loss of personal property, the Court 17 finds this matter cannot proceed in federal court. 18 II. Plaintiff Fails to Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over Auto Rental, LLC 19 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint because she failed to establish personal 20 jurisdiction over the Defendant on either a general or specific basis. ECF No. 5. On this occasion, 21 Plaintiff asserts the Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant. ECF No. 11 at 2. 22 Plaintiff appears to have abandoned specific jurisdiction as a basis for contending the District of 23 Nevada may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Id. 24 General jurisdiction over a corporation is only appropriate when the corporation’s affiliations 25 with the state are “so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the forum State.” 26 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014). Here, Plaintiff concludes, without any assertion 27 of fact or documentary evidence, that Auto Rental, LLC “operates” as Ace Rent a Car in Las Vegas. 1 jurisdiction. The question that must be answered is whether the non-resident parent carries on 2 “continuous and systematic” activities in the forum through a subsidiary such that it may be brought 3 into causes of action that are unrelated to its contacts with the forum. Kramer Motors, Inc. v. British 4 Leyland, Ltd., 628 F.2d 1175 , 1177 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1062 … (1980). The mere 5 existence of the parent-subsidiary relationship is an insufficient basis on which to acquire personal 6 jurisdiction over the parent. Transure, Inc. v. Marsh and McLennan, Inc., 766 F.2d 1297, 1299 (9th 7 Cir. 1985) ….” In re MDC Holdings Securities Litigation, 754 F.Supp. 785, 793 (S.D. Cal. 1990). 8 Moreover, “[e]ven where a parent owns 100% of a subsidiary and their boards of directors overlap, 9 the foreign parent is not subject to jurisdiction absent a showing that the parent controls the internal 10 affairs of the subsidiary and determines how the company will be operated on a day-to-day basis.” — 11 — Id. at 794 (internal citation and quote marks omitted). In the absence of any evidence of actual 12 ownership or day to day control, dismissal based on a lack of jurisdiction is appropriately granted. — 13 — Id. Said simply, for “diversity purposes, a parent and its subsidiary are treated as separate entities 14 with separate principal places of business.” China Basin Properties, Ltd. v. One Pass, Inc., 812 15 F.Supp.1038, 1041 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (internal citation omitted). While, the Court “may pierce the 16 corporate veil and disregard the separate corporate existence of a subsidiary if the corporation fails 17 to observe the formalities of corporate separation,” the Court “will not abandon the presumption that 18 … [the parent and subsidiary] are separate entities” when a “[p]laintiff has produced no evidence of 19 non-observance of corporate formalities ….” Id. (internal citations and quote marks omitted). 20 Here, there is the absence of any evidence of a parent-subsidiary relationship, let alone 21 evidence that Auto Rental controls the day to day operations of Ace Rent a Car. Plaintiff’s 22 conclusory statement provides no basis for the Court to abandon the presumption that Auto Rental 23 and Ace Rent a Car are separate entities with separate principal places of business. Plaintiff has not 24 demonstrated that the Court may properly exercise general personal jurisdiction over Auto Rental, 25 LLC, the only entity Plaintiff alleges engaged in wrongdoing. — 26 — — 27 — 1 III. Order 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) 3 is DISMISSED without prejudice, but without leave to amend in this Court. The without prejudice 4 dismissal is to allow Plaintiff to proceed with her action in Georgia or Oklahoma. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be closed on the docket and the Clerk of Court 6 is to accept no further filings from Plaintiff in this matter other than a notice of appeal. 7 Dated this 17th day of September, 2025. — 8 — — 9 — ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 —