Summary
This United States District Court for the District of Nevada order denies the defendants' motion requiring the plaintiff to post a security bond for costs under Nevada Revised Statutes § 18.130(1). The court reasons that because the action was filed under original federal-question jurisdiction involving primarily constitutional claims, state provisions mandating security for costs are inapplicable. Additionally, the court notes the plaintiff clarified he did not intend to plead a Monell claim against the police department, removing another potential basis for the bond. Consequently, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant may require a plaintiff asserting primarily constitutional claims in a federal-question action to post security for costs under Nevada Revised Statutes § 18.130(1).
- Whether defendants' assertion that plaintiff's potential Monell claim was likely to fail supplied an adequate basis for requiring security for costs.
Holdings
- The court declined to require plaintiff to post security for costs under Nevada Revised Statutes § 18.130(1) because the action was based on federal-question jurisdiction and involved alleged violations of the United States Constitution.
- Defendants' assertion that plaintiff's Monell claim against LVMPD was likely to fail did not provide an adequate basis for requiring security for costs, particularly where plaintiff stated that he did not intend to plead such a claim.
Key quotations
“When a plaintiff in an action resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, security for the costs and charges which may be awarded against such plaintiff may be required by the defendant, by the filing and service on plaintiff of a written demand therefor within the time limited for answering the complaint.” (1)
“However, ‘[w]hen suit is brought under a federal statute, state provisions requiring security for costs or expenses clearly are inapplicable.’” (1)
“The court finds that it would be contrary to public policy to automatically require security for costs under NRS 18.130 in cases involving alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution.” (1)
Factual background
Plaintiff Julian Tocker brought an action against Officer Zachary Gainey and others asserting claims that were primarily constitutional in nature. Defendants sought a $500 cost bond based on plaintiff's alleged out-of-state residence and Nevada Revised Statutes § 18.130(1). The action was before the federal district court on federal-question jurisdiction, and plaintiff disclaimed any intended Monell claim against LVMPD.
Procedural history
Defendants removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. After defendants moved for security of costs, plaintiff filed a non-opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss stating that he did not intend to plead a Monell claim against LVMPD. The district court denied the security-of-costs motion without prejudice.