Ball v. Park MGM Casino, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 WILLIAM H. BALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-01753-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 PARK MGM CASINO, LLC, 11 Defendant(s). 12 The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before 13 it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).1 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the 15 Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is 16 presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock 17 West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 18 “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in 19 federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. 20 General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). 21 An employment plaintiff must administratively exhaust his remedies before filing suit. 22 See, e.g., You v. Longs Drugs Stores Cal., LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1248-49 (D. Haw. 2013). 23 Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking when the plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative 24 remedies before filing suit. See Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2002). The 25 plaintiff must attach to his complaint the right to sue letter issued in relation to those administrative 26 1 The Court addresses herein only the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the event 27 Plaintiff establishes subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will then address other threshold issues, including resolving the application to proceed in forma pauperis and, as warranted, screening the 28 complaint. 1} proceedings. See, e.g., Delaney v. Lynwood Unified School Dist., 2008 WL 11338726, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2008). 3 Plaintiff in this case is bringing suit for alleged age discrimination. See Docket No. 1-1. Although Plaintiff alleges that he received a right to sue letter, see id. at § 1, he has not attached 5| that letter as is required, see Delaney, 2008 WL 11338726, at *3. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing, by November 12, 2024, 7|| why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any such response 8|| must attach the right to sue letter as an exhibit. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 28, 2024 11 Zen — Nancy J. Ko 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28