Soto v. Sup I Smith's Shopping Center LLC

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 GERMAN RICO SOTO, Case No. 2:25-cv-02129-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 SUP I SMITH’S SHOPPING CENTER LLC, NEVADA FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY 8 COMPANY d/b/a SMITH’S FOOD & DRUG #396, SMITH’S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS 9 INC., BREEANE LEAFDELE, LUIS SERVIA, and JENNIFER CORACCIDO, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis and 13 Complaint. ECF No. 1, 1-1. The Application is complete and granted below. 14 I. Screening the Complaint 15 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 16 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 17 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted 18 or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 19 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state 20 a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 21 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 22 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 23 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it 24 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 25 entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting id.). 26 II. Plaintiff does not assert a basis for jurisdiction. 27 Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power 1 1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all 2 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 3 This is commonly referred to as federal question jurisdiction. Federal district courts also have 4 original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds 5 the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different States.” 28 6 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs 7 must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 8 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal courts have the authority to determine their own 9 jurisdiction. Special Investments, Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2004). “The 10 party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal 11 court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. General 12 Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). A court may raise the question of subject 13 matter jurisdiction sua sponte, and it must dismiss a case if it determines it lacks subject matter 14 jurisdiction. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). As the party seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, 15 Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction exists. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 16 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2015). 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plead facts establishing or that could establish subject matter 18 jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of 19 an alleged accident at a Las Vegas Smith’s Supermarket. Plaintiff claims he slipped and fell on a 20 liquid substance near the refrigerated produce section. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff sues Smith’s and 21 individual defendants claiming the company and individual defendants were negligent. Id. at 7. 22 Plaintiff seeks $17 million in damages for the injury to his cervical and lumbar discs from the fall. 23 Id. at 7. 24 These allegations do not establish federal question jurisdiction as there are no alleged 25 violation of the Constitution or federal law. Plaintiff also does not plead a basis for diversity 26 jurisdiction. Plaintiff states a claim against “Sup I Smith’s Shopping Center” and various individuals 27 who are employees of the Las Vegas Smith’s Supermarket. Diversity jurisdiction requires every 1 is a citizen of Nevada. Even assuming Smith’s is a foreign corporation whose citizenship is in a 2 state other than Nevada, the individual defendants named by Plaintiff, who are all employees of 3 Smith’s (id. at 5), are citizens of Nevada. Thus, Plaintiff cannot state a basis for diversity 4 jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553, (2005) (“the presence 5 in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court 6 of original diversity jurisdiction[.]”) 7 III. Order 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma 9 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED 11 without prejudice, but also without leave to amend in federal court. The dismissal without prejudice 12 allows Plaintiff to refile his Complaint in state court where he may assert his state law claim. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is to close this case and accept no 15 further pleadings in this matter. 16 Dated this 24th day November, 2025. 17 18 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27