1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Marie Encar Arnold, Case No. 2:25-cv-00035-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO 5 vs. GRANT MOTIONS TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANTS TRUMP CONSULTING & 6 MARKETING LLC and TRUMP LAS Trump Las Vegas Sale & Marketing Inc., et al., V E G A S S A L E & M ARKETING INC. 7 (ECF Nos. 14 and 18) Defendants. 8

9

10 Per 28 USC 636, I was referred the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 14 and 18)(“Motions”) by 11 defendants Trump Consulting & Marketing LLC (“TCM”) and Trump Las Vegas Sale & Marketing Inc. 12 (“TLVSM”). For the reasons below, I RECOMMEND the Motions be GRANTED and plaintiff’s 13 Complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend. 14 DISCUSSION 15 16 I. FACTS 17 This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff, who is pro se, alleges that she entered into a sales 18 contract to purchase a “Trump Pence Military Hat” and two “Trump Pence member cards” providing 19 certain benefits and discounts. See Complaint, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff alleges that she was overcharged 20 $105.00 on April 19, 2019, in breach of the sales contract, and asserts a breach of contract under NRS 21 333.365(1) and a fraud claim per 7 U.S.C. §6b. ECF No. 6. This is the extent of plaintiff’s substantive 22 23 24 25 allegations. Plaintiff does not allege that any of the named defendants were parties to that sales 1 contract1 or that they otherwise committed any actionable conduct. Id. 2 This is plaintiff’s second attempt to assert claims against the named defendants based on the 3 4 alleged sales contract to purchase a “Trump Pence Military Hat” and two “Trump Pence member cards.” 5 Plaintiff previously filed an identical action at Case No. 2:24-cv-2239-APG-EJY (“Case No. 2239”), 6 naming the same defendants and asserting the same causes of action. See Case No. 2239 at ECF No. 4 7 (First Amended Complaint). The Court dismissed Case No. 2239, finding that plaintiff failed to allege 8 jurisdiction. See Case No. 2239 at ECF Nos. 9 (Report and Recommendation) and 10 (Order Adopting 9 Report and Recommendation). Among other things, Judge Elayna J. Youchah found the Court lacked 10 diversity jurisdiction per

because all parties are Nevada residents, and the only 11 supportable damages alleged were $105.00. Case No. 2239, ECF No. 9 at p. 3. Judge Youchah also 12 found lack of federal question jurisdiction under

because plaintiff did not state a claim 13 for breach of 7 U.S.C. §6b. Id. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon adopted Judge Youchah’s Report and 14 Recommendation and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend, but without prejudice for 15 plaintiff to pursue her breach of contract claim in state court. Case No., 2239 at ECF No. 10. 16 17 Defendants TCM and TLVSM argue that plaintiff’s complaint in this action should be dismissed 18 for similar and other reasons. See ECF Nos. 14 and 18. 19 II. ANALYSIS 20 Courts liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond 21 doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to 22 relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan,

(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 23 24 1 Plaintiff attached to her Complaint a copy of the Terms and Conditions of the Trump Pence member 25 cards which identifies non-party, “Trump International Hotels Management, LLC dba Trump Hotels,” as the operator of the cards. ECF No. 1 at Exhibit A. 678 (2009). Nonetheless, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 1 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal,

. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2 "Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to 3 4 dismiss." Pareto v. F.D.I.C.,

, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). 5 “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized 6 by the Constitution and statute.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC,

(9th Cir. 7 2011) (internal quotations omitted)(citation omitted). “The party asserting federal jurisdiction 8 bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264

(9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.,

, 189 10 (1936)). 11 A. The Court Does Not Have Diversity Jurisdiction 12 Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 13 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. Federal district courts have 14 original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in controversy exceeds the 15 sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of different States.”

17 1332(a). “Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen 18 of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc.,

, 1067 19 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada and alleges that 20 all three named defendants, TCM, TLVSM, and Trump LV 4600 LLC, are incorporated and conduct 21 business in Nevada. ECF No. 6. Moreover, the amount at controversy is only $105.00, well below the 22 Section 1332(a) threshold. 23 B. The Court Does Not Have Federal Question Jurisdiction 24 The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under

because plaintiff fails to 25 state a claim under 7 U.S.C. § 6b, which is part of the Commodities Exchange Act and deals with 1 contracts “of sale of any commodity.” Id. A claim under 7 U.S.C. § 6b is a fraud claim. The statute 2 provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following in connection with 3 4 any commodity sales contract: 5 (A) cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud the other person; (B) willfully to make or cause to be made to the other person any false 6 report or statement or willfully to enter or cause to be entered ... any false record; [or] 7 (C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive the other person by any means whatsoever in regard to any order or contract or the disposition or 8 execution of any order or contract, or in regard to any act of agency performed, with respect to any order or contract for ... the other person[.] 9

10 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a). 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 requires all fraud claims to be stated with particularity. Id. 12 See also Dzurka Bros., LLC v. Luckey Farmers, Inc.,

, 997 (E.D. Mich. 2024)(“As a 13 claim involving fraud or mistake, a party alleging a fraudulent and misleading contract in violation of 7 14 U.S.C. § 6b(a) must state such claim with particularity)(internal quotations omitted)(citing Fed. R. Civ.

(b)). “To comply with the rule, the complaint must state with particularity the circumstances 16 constituting the fraud, including an account of the time, place, and specific content of the false 17 representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation.” Daniels Fam. 2001 18 Revocable Tr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.,

, 1253 (D. Nev. 2022)(internal 19 quotations omitted)(quoting Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,

, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004)). 20 Plaintiff did not allege any facts with particularity to establish these elements in support of her 7 21 U.S.C. § 6b(a) claim. I therefore find that Plaintiff does not state a 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a) claim that she was 22 23 induced into a commodities contract that was fraudulent. Because Plaintiff does state a 7 U.S.C. §6b 24 claim, I further find the Court also lacks federal question jurisdiction under

. 25 C. Plaintiff Does Not Allege Any Actionable Conduct by Defendants 1 Moving defendants argue that plaintiff does not identify any conduct by them supporting her 2 causes of action. See ECF No. 14 at p. 6. A complaint that “lump[s] together” several defendants in 3 4 broad allegations does not satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8(a)(2). Melnek v. Las Vegas Metro. 5 Police Dep't, No. 2:23-CV-01303-GMN-MDC,

, at *4 (D. Nev. May 10, 6 2024)(quoting Gauvin v. Trombatore,

(N.D. Cal. 1988)). A complaint must 7 identify “what action each Defendant took that caused Plaintiffs’ harm, without resort to generalized 8 allegations against Defendants as a whole.” Melnek,

, at *4)(citing In re iPhone 9 Application Litig., No. 11–MD–02250–LHK,

, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011)). 10 Plaintiff does not identify any conduct by the named defendants which supports her causes of action. 11 Instead, Plaintiff identifies one singular defendant, which she vaguely refers to as “Trump,” e.g.: 12 Marie Encar Arnold…. purchased to member to TRUMP PENCE military 13 hat, Make America Great Again Committee. Defendant ("Trump") would automatically deduct $35.00 a month from Plaintiffs Marie Encar Arnold 14 BOA account. Plaintiff Marie Encar Arnold got two TRUMP PENCE member cards one Silver, and Gold member account *******33…. 15 Defendant ("TRUMP") breached the sale contract on April 24, 2019, overcharging the $105.00 on a month of April 24, 2019. 16 Plaintiff Marie Encar Arnold, it was a mistake and noticed no refund next 17 following month. Plaintiff Marie Encar Arnold. Defendant ("TRUMP") closed the account of the ("TRUMP") Billionaire Membership *******33 18 account feeling guilty about overcharging $105.00. Plaintiff Marie Encar Arnold sent her demand letter on June 26, 2024, to his one of marketing. 19 Defendant ("TRUMP") did not attempt to reach about the overcharges in his “TRUMP" Billionaire Gold Member Card. 20 ECF No. 6 at p. 3. 21 Plaintiff’s failure to identify any actionable conduct by the named defendants not only violates 22 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 but requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. “A federal court lacks jurisdiction 24 unless there is a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ under Article III ....” McCullough v. Graber,

, 25 1059 (9th Cir. 2013). To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff must show an injury traceable to a named defendant, among other things. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,

,

,

5 2136 (1992). 3 || TH. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend Is Proper 4 As discussed above, the Court previously dismissed plaintiff's identical claims in Case No. 2239 5 || for the same reasons I recommend dismissal here. Plaintiff did not object to Judge Youchah’s Report 6 || and Recommendation dismissing her claims in Case No. 2230 or appeal District Judge Andrew P. 7 || Gordon’s Order adopting the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, I recommend granting the 8 moving defendants’ Motions and dismissing plaintiff's Complaint without leave to amend. I further ° recommend that plaintiff be warned that commencing a new action in this Court against the named defendants for the same facts may result in such action being dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiff designated a vexatious litigant, or other sanctions. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that:

4 (1) The Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 14 and 18)(‘“Motions”) by defendants Trump 15 Consulting & Marketing LLC (“TCM”) and Trump Las Vegas Sale & Marketing Inc. (““TLVSM”) be

16 || GRANTED and plaintiff's Complaint DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 17 (2) Plaintiff be warned that commencing a new action in this Court against the named 18 || defendants for the same facts may result in such action being dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiff 19 || designated a vexatious litigant, or other sanctions. 20 DATED: November 25, 2025. 21 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. a “LA £7. . of 23 yp United Statey Pagi\trate Jud 4 ff if 25

1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 3 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 8 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 9 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 12 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 13 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 14 result in dismissal of the action. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25