Bank of America, N.A. v. Mesa Verde Homeowners Association, 2:16-CV-498 JCM (NJK). (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160415c40
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is defendant SFR Investments' motion demanding security for costs from plaintiff Bank of America. (Doc. #6). Plaintiff has not filed a response. Defendant requests that the plaintiff be required to submit security for costs in the amount of $500 pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat 18.130. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that "federal district courts have inherent power to require plaintiffs to post security for costs." Simulnet E. Ass
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is defendant SFR Investments' motion demanding security for costs from plaintiff Bank of America. (Doc. #6). Plaintiff has not filed a response. Defendant requests that the plaintiff be required to submit security for costs in the amount of $500 pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat 18.130. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that "federal district courts have inherent power to require plaintiffs to post security for costs." Simulnet E. Asso..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is defendant SFR Investments' motion demanding security for costs from plaintiff Bank of America. (Doc. #6). Plaintiff has not filed a response. Defendant requests that the plaintiff be required to submit security for costs in the amount of $500 pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat 18.130.
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that "federal district courts have inherent power to require plaintiffs to post security for costs." Simulnet E. Associates v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1994). A federal district court typically follows the forum state's practice, particularly when a party is a non-resident. See, e.g., § 2671 Security for Costs, 10 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2671 (3d ed.). Nev. Rev. Stat.18.130 provides that the court may require an out-of-state plaintiff to post a security of costs in an amount up to $500 upon a request by a defendant.
The court finds that it is appropriate to require that plaintiff post a security bond of $500 in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED that defendant's motion demanding security of costs (doc. #6) be, and at the same time hereby are, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall post a security bond in the amount of $500 within 14 days of the entry of this order.
Source: Leagle
