Bolero v. McCarley ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Bolero, Case No. 2:24-cv-001761-NJK 4 Plaintiff Order Reassigning Case 5 v. 6 Amanda Jean McCarley, 7 Defendant 8 9 Defendant Amanda McCarley initiated eight separate lawsuits against defendants Bolero 10 Apartments, Viking Villas, LLC, Stout Insurance Company, LLC, and Stout Management 11 Company, LLC. Because the cases involved common questions of law and facts, the district 12 judges and magistrate judges assigned to these cases determined that consolidation under 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) was appropriate. Order, ECF No. 5 in McCarley v. Stout 14 Insurance Company, LLC, et al., Case no. 2:24-cv- 01697-CDS-MDC". Seven of McCarley’s cases were 15 consolidated.1 Id. McCarley’s eighth suit is an eviction action that was initiated by Bolero against 16 McCarley in Las Vegas Justice Court. ECF No. 1-1 at 5–9. McCarley removed that action to this 17 court on September 19, 2024. ECF No. 1. 18 This court is ultimately one of limited jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited 19 jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’” See U.S. 20 Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 21 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). It is unclear at this stage whether or how this court has 22 subject-matter jurisdiction over McCarley’s apparent landlord-tenant dispute because matters 23 of landlord-tenant law arise under state law. See, e.g., Los Cabos 1 v. Ross, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 182962, 2016 WL 8114129, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2016) (explaining that the Court lacked 25 1 Case Nos. 2:24-cv-01693-MDC; 2:24-cv-01698-JAD-NJK; 2:24-cv-01706-CDS-MDC; 2:24-cv-01707- 26 GMN-NJK; 2:24-cv-01710-JAD-MDC; and 2:24-cv-01722-JAD-BNW, were consolidated with Case No. 2:24-cv-01697-CDS-MDC, serving as the lead case. jurisdiction over alleged eviction-related due process violations “[b]ecause landlord-tenant 2|| disputes are matters of state law they cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.”); see also Evans v. Sentry Prop. Mgmt. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 71, 72 (D. Mass. 1994) (granting defendants motion to remand because “plaintiff's [c]omplaint is based solely on alleged violations of state landlord/tenant law.”) “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 7 Further, although magistrate judges may hear and determine any pretrial matter before the court, dispositive matters are reserved for district judges. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Because 9}| subject-matter jurisdiction over McCarley’s landlord-tenant dispute must be established, which 10] may ultimately be dispositive, in the exercise of my discretion, this action is transfer and reassigned. 12 Conclusion 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, in the exercise of my discretion, that Case No. 2:24-cv- 14] OO1761-NJK is transferred and reassigned to District Judge Cristina D. Silva and Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, II. 16 Dated: October 23, 2024 18 Cristina D. Silva _ Nancy. dppe 9 United States District Judge United St ate Magistrate Judge 21 Maximaiiano D/Cowvilli Il Uniged e Judge 23 24 25 26