Ronald Arashi and Laurie Arashi v. County of Nevada, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD ARASHI and LAURIE No. 2:25-cv-1753 DAD AC PS

ARASHI,

12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF NEVADA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiffs are proceeding in pro se and have paid the filing fee. This case is accordingly 19 referred to the undersigned for pre-trial matters pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants 20 filed a motion to dismiss this case. ECF No. 7. Plaintiffs opposed the motion (ECF No. 8) and 21 defendants have replied (ECF No. 12). The motion is fully briefed and was taken under 22 submission. ECF No. 14. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends 23 defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 24 I. Background 25 A. The Complaint 26 Plaintiffs are individual citizens of Nevada County, California. ECF No. 1 at 2. 27 Defendant the County of Nevada is a municipal service entity and taxing authority under 28 California law. Id. at 2-3. …