Tracy A. Haynes, et al. v. Senoia Golf Carts, et al.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Tracy A. Haynes, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02323-APG-BNW 5 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 6 v. 7 Senoia Golf Carts, et al., 8 Defendants. [9] 10 Pro se plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. ECF 11 No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) showing an inability to 12 prepay fees or costs or give security for them. Accordingly, this Court will grant his request to 13 proceed in forma pauperis. This Court now screens his complaint. 14 I. ANALYSIS 15 A. Screening standard 16 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 18 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 19 granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 21 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 22 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 23 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 25 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 26 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 27 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ). 1 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658 , 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 6 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 7 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 8 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 9 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 , 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the complaint 11 “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power 12 authorized by Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 , 13 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all 14 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” otherwise 15 known as federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . Federal district courts also have original 16 jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 17 or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 18 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a 19 citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 20 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 A case in federal court based on diversity of citizenship requires a disclosure statement 22 from each party that names and identifies the citizenship of that party, or entity whose citizenship 23 is attributed to that party, at the time the complaint is filed (and, if applicable, when the case was 24 removed to federal court). Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). For a corporation, citizenship is determined 25 by its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1) (“[A] 26 corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been 27 incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.”). A 1 headquarters. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010) (“[I]n practice [the ‘nerve 2 center’] should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided 3 that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination.”). “A limited 4 liability company ‘is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens,’ not the 5 state in which it was formed or does business.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606 , 6 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th 7 Cir. 2006)) (emphasis added). Moreover, “[i]f even one of [an LLC's] members is another 8 unincorporated entity, the citizenship of each of that member's members (or partners, as the case 9 may be) must then be considered.” D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661 10 F.3d 124 , 126 (1st Cir. 2011). The Court must “trac[e] through however many layers there may 11 be” to ensure the citizenship of every partner or member is accounted for in the Court's 12 jurisdictional analysis. West v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 951 F.3d 827 , 830 (7th Cir. 2020). 13 “Diversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of all of the members of the LLC and may be 14 destroyed if any owner or member” of any layer of an unincorporated entity on one side has the 15 same citizenship as a party on the other side. Holden v. Fluent, Inc., No. 20-cv-03816-JCS, 2020 16 WL 6822914 , at *1 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2020). 17 A court may raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte, and it must 18 dismiss a case if it determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Special Investments, Inc. v. 19 Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989 , 992 (9th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 20 1. Jurisdiction 21 Plaintiff ‘s claims involve the purchase of e-bikes and Defendants’ failure to deliver them 22 or refund the payment. Plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of Nevada, and that Defendant Sonoia 23 Golf Carts is a citizen of Georgia. But Plaintiff provides no information regarding the citizenship 24 of Defendant Xpress Freight. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether there is full diversity in 25 this case. 26 In addition, it is not clear how the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 minimum 27 that would give this court jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff lists a variety of different 1 damages exceed $75,000. “Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are 2 insufficient” to establish jurisdiction. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 , 3 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, while it is not the purpose of a screening order to assess the 4 merits of a claim for punitive damages, it is relevant to note that party in Nevada may not recover 5 punitive damages resulting from a breach of contract. S.J. Amoroso Const. Co. v. Lazovich and 6 Lazovich, 810 P.2d 775 (Nev. 1991). As such, the amount Plaintiff lists for punitive damages 7 does not factor into the calculation to determine the amount in controversy. 8 2. Amendment 9 It does not appear that this Court will have jurisdiction over this matter and that this case 10 should be filed in state court instead.1 Nevertheless, of Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must read 11 this order carefully and address the current deficiencies. 12 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 13 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serve any function in this case. As such, if Plaintiff files an 14 amended complaint, each claim and the involvement of each specific defendant must be alleged 15 sufficiently. The court cannot refer to a prior pleading or to other documents to make plaintiff’s 16 amended complaint complete. The amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without 17 reference to prior pleadings or to other documents. 18 II. CONCLUSION 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in 20 forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to 21 conclusion without prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 23 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). [27] 1 Give this, this Court does not address other deficiencies regarding pleading standards and ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice 2 || and with leave to amend. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so by 3 || December 26, 2025, or this Court will recommend that her case be dismissed. [4] 5 DATED: November 24, 2025 [6] 7 Ling a lentace basin BRENDA WEKSLER 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE