Bella Layne Holdings, LLC et al v. Southern Nevada Water Authority et al, No. 2:2021cv00235 - Document 38 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs' remaining claims against LVVWD and SNWA are DISMISSED without prejudice. ORDER granting 32 Motion to Strike CNLV's joinder; ORDER granting 36 Motion for Judgment; Plaintiffs' claims against CNLV are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/20/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bella Layne Holdings, LLC et al v. Southern Nevada Water Authority et al Doc. 38 Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 BELLA LAYNE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff(s), Case No. 2:21-CV-235 JCM (NJK) ORDER v. SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY, et al., Defendant(s). 12 13 14 Presently before the court is defendants Las Vegas Valley Water District 15 (“LVVWD”) and Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (“SNWA”) motion to dismiss 16 plaintiffs Bella Layne Holdings, LLC (“Bella”) and Global Pest Services, LLC’s (“Global”) 17 (collectively “plaintiffs”) complaint (ECF No. 11), with defendant City of North Las Vegas 18 (“CNLV”) (collectively, with LVVWD and SNWA, “defendants”) joining thereto (ECF No. 19 20 16). Plaintiffs responded in opposition. (ECF No. 19). No replies were filed and the time to do so has passed. 21 Also before the court is LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first 22 amended complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 21), with CNLV joining thereto (ECF No. 22). 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiffs responded in opposition (ECF No. 33), to which LVVWD and SNWA replied (ECF No. 34). Also before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to strike CNLV’s joinder to the second motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 32). No responses have been filed and the time to do so has passed. 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 10 1 Also before the court is CNLV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 2 36). Plaintiffs responded in opposition. (ECF No. 37). No reply has been filed and the time 3 to do so has passed. 4 I. FACTS & POCEDURAL HISTORY 5 Bella owns real property located at 342 Precision Drive, North Las Vegas, Nevada 6 89157 (APN No. 139-08-712) (the “Property”). (ECF No. 18 at 3). The Property is a large 7 steel frame commercial warehouse and office space. 8 operating its pest control services out of the Property. (Id.). (Id.). Global is Bella’s tenant, 9 SNWA and LVVWD are political subdivisions in Nevada,1 and CNLV is a local 10 government and political subdivision of Nevada. (Id. at 3). Defendants own adjoining 11 parcels of land, atop which sits five water storage tanks and other structures (the 12 “Reservoir”). (Id). The Reservoir is located 200 feet to the south of the Property. (Id.) 13 Plaintiffs allege that each defendant has access to the entirety of the Reservoir, that 14 defendants share operations of the Reservoir, and that defendants are in constant 15 communication with each other regarding the operation of the Reservoir. (Id. at 3–4). 16 Plaintiffs allege that defendants allowed water to leak from the Reservoir at such a 17 high volume and frequency that it caused extensive cosmetic and structural damage to the 18 Property. (Id. at 5). According to plaintiffs, the water seeped into the ground below the 19 Reservoir and made its way to the Property, where it collected and caused the ground upon 20 which the Property sits to swell and move. (Id.) Plaintiffs further allege that defendants had 21 a policy, practice, or custom of either facilitating the water leakage or of being deliberately 22 indifferent to it. (Id.). 23 Based on the above, plaintiffs assert two claims against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 24 § 1983 (“Section 1983”): claim one for deprivation of [laintiffs’ use of the Property without 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 SNWA is also a municipality. See NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 244A.0347, 538.04(5). LVWD is also a local government and a municipality. See NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 244A.0347, 538.041(1)(b). Regarding CNLV, local governments, like municipalities, are subject to liability claims and immune from punitive damages under Section 1983. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690–91, 698 (1978); City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 266 (1981). -2- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 10 1 due process of law or just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth 2 Amendments; and claim six for civil conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their Fifth and 3 Fourteenth Amendment rights.2 (Id. at 6, 10). Plaintiffs additionally allege seven state law 4 claims against defendants for violation of The Nevada Constitution, trespass, nuisance, 5 conversion, civil conspiracy/concert of action, negligence, and inverse condemnation. (Id. at 6 8–11). 7 After plaintiffs filed their complaint, LVVWD and SNWA moved to dismiss (ECF 8 No. 11), with CNLV joining (ECF No. 16). However, plaintiffs exercised their right to 9 amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) before judgment was 10 rendered on the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 18; ECF No. 19). Thereafter, LVVWD and 11 SNWA moved to dismiss the FAC (ECF No. 21). CNLV answered the FAC before filing a 12 joinder to LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiffs now move to 13 strike that joinder. (ECF No. 32). 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 A. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires every pleading to contain a 17 “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. 18 CIV. P. 8. Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does require more 19 than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” 20 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). In other words, a pleading 21 must have plausible factual allegations that cover “all the material elements necessary to 22 sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 23 562 (2007) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. 24 Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). 25 26 Plaintiffs’ FAC does not clearly set forth whether the sixth claim for relief, “Civil Conspiracy/Concert of Action,” is part of the Section 1983 claim for violation of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights or merely a state law claim. Thus, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, the court treats this claim as implicating both. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 2 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -3- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 10 1 The Supreme Court in Iqbal clarified the two-step approach to evaluate a complaint’s 2 legal sufficiency on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all 3 well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. 4 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. Legal conclusions are not entitled to this assumption of truth. Id. 5 Second, the court must consider whether the well-pleaded factual allegations state a plausible 6 claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the court can draw a 7 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678. 8 When the allegations have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint 9 must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 10 (9th Cir. 2011). 11 If the court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, it should grant leave to amend 12 unless the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 13 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Rule 15(a), the court should “freely” grant leave to 14 amend “when justice so requires,” and absent “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on 15 the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments . . . undue 16 prejudice to the opposing party . . . futility of the amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 17 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The court should grant leave to amend “even if no request to amend 18 the pleading was made.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 B. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings 21 “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is substantially identical to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) 22 because, under both rules, a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, 23 taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.” Chavez v. U.S., 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 24 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). More specifically, a district court may dismiss a claim 25 under Rule 12(c) for factual insufficiency. See Buel v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 166 Fed.Appx. 26 901 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2006) (holding so in a section 1983 municipal liability suit); Robinson v. 27 San Bernardino Cnty., 815 Fed.Appx. 218, 219 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020) (holding so in a 28 section 1983 conspiracy suit). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -4- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 5 of 10 1 “Thus, when brought by a defendant, the same legal standard applies to post-answer 2 Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings as applies to pre-answer Rule 12(b)(6) 3 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Whitney v. 4 CTX Mortg. Co., LLC, No. 11-CV-0037 (LRH), 2012 WL 1956860, at *1 (D. Nev. May 31, 5 2012) (citations omitted). 6 C. Leave to amend 7 It is well established that leave to amend should be freely granted unless amendment 8 would be futile. See, e.g., DeSoto, 957 F.2d at 658. Courts also have discretion to grant 9 leave to amend when claims are dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(c). Breakman v. Stubbs, No. 10 10-CV-00487 (WGC), 2012 WL 1588293, at *2 (D. Nev. May 3, 2012) (citation omitted); 11 see Abagninin v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, at 742 (9th Cir. 2008). 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 As an initial matter, LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ original 14 complaint (ECF No. 11) is mooted by the FAC (ECF No. 18). Accordingly, the first motion 15 to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is DENIED as moot. 16 Turning to the motions to dismiss the FAC, LVVWD and SNWA seek dismissal of 17 all claims against them. (ECF No. 21). CNLV seeks to join their motion (ECF No. 22), but 18 plaintiffs seek to strike that joinder (ECF No. 32). However, CNLV also seeks judgment on 19 the pleadings. (ECF No. 36). 20 A. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike CNLV’s joinder 21 CNLV did not respond to plaintiffs’ motion to strike CNLV’s joinder. (ECF No. 32). 22 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to strike is GRANTED. LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of an 23 opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a 24 consent to granting of the motion.”); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 25 404–05 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that district courts have inherent power to control their 26 dockets and manage their affairs, including the power to strike or deny motions to streamline 27 motion practice and promote judicial efficiency). 28 ... James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -5- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 6 of 10 1 B. CNLV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 2 A 12(c) motion may be filed “[a]fter pleadings are closed but within such time as not 3 to delay the trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). “[P]leadings are closed for the purposes of Rule 4 12(c) once a complaint and answer have been filed, assuming . . . that no counterclaim or 5 cross-claim is made.” Doe v. U.S., 419 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2005). 6 Here, prior to moving for judgment on the pleadings, CNLV answered plaintiffs’ 7 FAC. (ECF No. 20). No counterclaims or cross-claims have since been filed. Therefore, 8 CNLV’s 12(c) motion is timely. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). 9 “[T]he same legal standard applies to post-answer Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on 10 the pleadings as applies to pre-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Whitney, 2012 WL 11 1956860 at *1. Here, plaintiffs make substantially similar arguments in response to CNLV’s 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings as to LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss. (See 13 ECF No. at 9–20). Thus, the analysis for LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss is 14 substantially similar to the analysis for CNLV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.3 15 Accordingly, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the court determines CNLV’s 16 motion for judgment on the pleadings together with LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to 17 dismiss. See Ready Transp., Inc., 627 F.3d at 404–05. 18 C. LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss the FAC 19 LVVWD and SNWA contend that plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims should be 20 dismissed because plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead to the existence of a custom or policy 21 to establish municipal liability as required under Monell. (ECF No. 21 at 5–6, 8–9). Further, 22 LVVWD and SNWA argue that plaintiffs’ requests for punitive damages are not available 23 through Section 1983, and therefore should be dismissed. (ECF No. 21 at 11). This court 24 agrees on all fronts. 25 26 3 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge Plaintiffs argue that CNLV should not be allowed to incorporate by reference the arguments made by LVWD and SNWA in CNLV’s motion to dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 37 at 7). Yet, plaintiffs fail to assert any authority in support of their position. (See id.). Therefore, the court considers the arguments from LVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss in determining CNLV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. -6- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 7 of 10 1 Plaintiffs contend that claims arising under section 1983 “are subject only to the 2 liberal notice pleading standard of FED. R. CIV. P. 8,” and a bare allegation of official policy, 3 custom, or practice is sufficient at the pleading stage to survive a motion to dismiss. (ECF 4 No. 33 at 3–4). Plaintiffs are mistaken. 5 The Ninth Circuit has explicitly stated that the “bare allegation,” notice-pleading 6 standard previously sufficient to establish claims under Section 1983 is no longer sufficient, 7 as it has been abridged by Iqbal. AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 8 (9th Cir. 2012). 9 sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party 10 to defend itself,” and the alleged facts must be sufficiently plausible. Id. Thus, the court 11 applies the standards set by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal, as articulated above, 12 to evaluate plaintiffs’ FAC. Section 1983 claims must now, under Twombly and Iqbal, “contain 13 1. Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 Monell claim 14 The Supreme Court in Monell held that “municipalities and other local government 15 units” are liable for employees’ constitutional torts only if the employees acted tortiously 16 pursuant to a municipal custom or policy. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91, 698. Furthermore, “a 17 municipality cannot be held liable under [S]ection 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” 18 Id. at 694. 19 Therefore, to survive this motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must sufficiently allege that 20 “(1) [they were] deprived of a constitutional right; (2) the [municipality] had a policy; (3) the 21 policy amounted to a deliberate indifference to [their] constitutional right; and (4) the policy 22 was the ‘moving force behind the constitutional violation.’ ” Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., 23 237 F.3d 1101, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewhich, 92 F.3d 24 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996)). 25 26 The Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff can establish a municipal policy by demonstrating one of the following: 27 (1) the constitutional tort was the result of a longstanding practice or custom 28 which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -7- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 8 of 10 1 entity; (2) the tortfeasor was an official whose acts fairly represent official 2 policy such that the challenged action constituted official policy; or (3) an 3 official with final policy-making authority delegated that authority to, or 4 ratified the decision of, a subordinate. 5 Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 Here, plaintiffs insufficiently pled their Section 1983 claim. Plaintiffs repeatedly 7 allege that the damage to the Property, and therefore the violation of their constitutional 8 rights, was caused by LVVWD and SNWA’s “policy, practice, or custom.” (See, e.g., ECF 9 No. 18 at ¶ 344). However, plaintiffs do not support these threadbare conclusions with any 10 specific factual allegations. 11 As plaintiffs plead nothing beyond a recitation of the elements of the cause of action 12 to suggest that a policy, custom, or practice plausibly existed, they fail to state a claim for 13 relief under Section 1983. See, e.g., Estate of Osuna v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, 392 F. Supp. 3d 14 1162, 1174 (E.D. Ca. 2019) (“[T]he complaint must contain sufficient factual allegation to 15 plausibly suggest a policy or custom, as opposed to merely random, unconnected acts of 16 misconduct . . . .”); D. R. v. Contra Costa Cnty. CA, No. 19-CV-07152, 2020 WL 5526604 17 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2020) (dismissing a Monell claim for lacking support of underlying 18 factual allegations). 19 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ first claim for relief is DISMISSED without prejudice. 20 2. Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 civil conspiracy claim 21 The elements of conspiracy under Section 1983 are: (1) the existence of an express or 22 implied agreement among the defendants to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, 23 and (2) an actual deprivation of those rights resulting from that agreement. Ting v. U.S., 927 24 F.2d 1504, 1512 (9th Cir. 1991). Crucial to this cause of action is whether there was “an 25 agreement or meeting of the minds” to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. See Woodrum 26 v. Woodward Co., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 “Defendants have a policy, practice or custom of purposefully discharging water with knowledge that the runoff flows directly to [the] Property, pools, seeps into the soil, and causes further damage.” 4 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -8- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 9 of 10 1 Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient for the court to plausibly conclude that an 2 agreement to deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights existed amongst the 3 defendants. (See ECF No. 10 at 13). To support an inference of an agreement, plaintiffs 4 allege nothing more than that the defendants own adjacent parcels of land and have equal 5 access to the Reservoir facilities. (See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 58–59). The court cannot, on 6 those allegations, draw a reasonable inference of any such agreement. With nothing more 7 than conclusory allegations, plaintiffs’ sixth claim fails. 8 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ sixth claim for relief is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 3. Punitive damages 10 Municipalities and local governments are “immune from punitive damages under 11 [Section] 1983.” City of Newport, 453 U.S. at 266, 271. As previously discussed, LVVWD 12 and SNWA are municipalities, and CNLV is a local government. Accordingly, all claims for 13 punitive damages arising under Section 1983 against defendants are DISMISSED with 14 prejudice. James v. City of Henderson, No. 19-CV-1207 (JCM), 2020 WL 5775752, at *5 15 (D. Nev. Sept. 28, 2020). 16 D. Plaintiffs’ state law claims 17 Having dismissed plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims, plaintiffs’ only remaining claims 18 are state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise 19 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if all original jurisdiction claims have been 20 dismissed. It is well-settled that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state 21 claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 22 726 (1966). 23 24 The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ second through eighth claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. 25 E. Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend 26 Plaintiffs request leave to amend their complaint. (ECF No. 33 at 15; ECF 37 at 20). 27 Defendants argue that leave should not be granted because “there is no reason to assume 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -9- Case 2:21-cv-00235-JCM-NJK Document 38 Filed 09/20/21 Page 10 of 10 1 [plaintiffs] are capable of saving their complaint.” (ECF No. 34 at 10; ECF No. 36 at 5 and 2 ECF No. 36-2 at 11). The court disagrees. Accordingly, the court dismisses plaintiffs’ claims—other than the claims for punitive 3 4 damages—without prejudice. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that LVVWD and 8 SNWA’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LVVWD and SNWA’s motion to dismiss 10 plaintiffs’ FAC (ECF No. 21) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims for 11 punitive damages against all defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. 12 remaining claims against LVVWD and SNWA are DISMISSED without prejudice. 13 14 Plaintiffs’ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to strike CNLV’s joinder (ECF No. 32) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CNLV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 16 (ECF No. 36) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against CNLV are 17 DISMISSED without prejudice. 18 19 20 DATED September 20, 2021. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge - 10 -
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
