Warren v. Hilton Grand Vacations ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ALLANNA WARREN, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00988-APG-DJA 4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice 5 v. [ECF No. 63] 6 HILTON GRAND VACATIONS, 7 Defendant 8 Plaintiff Allanna Warren filed suit against her employer, defendant Hilton Grand 9 Vacations (HGV), in state court. ECF No. 1-3. HGV removed the action to this court based on 10 federal question and diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. I granted HGV’s motion to dismiss the 11 original complaint, with leave to amend. ECF No. 55. Warren filed an amended complaint. ECF 12 No. 61. HGV again moves to dismiss, arguing that Warren did not fix any of the deficiencies I 13 noted in my prior order, and she also included 14 new defendants without leave of the court. 14 Warren filed an opposition, but she does not respond to most of HGV’s arguments. Instead, she 15 argues that because the defendants demand a jury, “they are not interested in dismissing this case 16 and want the case to go to trial.” ECF No. 93 at 1. Warren also refers to matters outside the 17 amended complaint regarding statements made in a worker’s compensation hearing. Id. at 2. 18 As an initial matter, the defendants’ request for a jury if this matter proceeded to trial 19 does not mean they are precluded from seeking dismissal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 20 requires a party to make a demand for a jury trial early in the case. 21 I grant HGV’s motion to dismiss because Warren’s amended complaint is nearly identical 22 to the original complaint, with the only significant alteration being the unauthorized addition of 23 14 new defendants. Warren’s amended complaint therefore does not correct any of the 1} deficiencies identified in my prior order. I deny Warren leave to amend because she had an opportunity to amend and ignored the instructions in my order, including my admonition that the amended complaint “should not include lengthy discussion of matters that are not relevant to 4!| Warren’s claims against HGV in this case.” ECF No. 55 at 12; see Metzler Inv. GMBH vy. 5|| Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that “the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended 7\\the complaint” (quotation omitted)). I have no reason to believe she will respond differently if given another opportunity to amend. 9 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Hilton Grand Vacations’ motion to dismiss 10|| (ECF No. 63) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Allanna Warren’s amended complaint (ECF No. 61) is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendant 12|| Hilton Grand Vacations and against plaintiff Allanna Warren, and to close this case. 13 DATED this 4th day of April, 2024. 14 OIENRE 1S ANDREW P.GORDON. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23