Kennedy v. Avanti Residential, LLC et al
Filing
7
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. #6 ) is WITHDRAWN. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the District of Colorado and that this case be closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 5/9/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
Alea R. Kennedy,
Plaintiff(s),
4
5
vs.
6
Avanti Residential, LLC, et al.,
2:24-cv-00489-RFB-MDC
ORDER WITHDRAWING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 6) AND
TRANSFERING VENUE
Defendant(s).
7
Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s Brief Showing Cause. ECF No. 5. The Court previously
8
9
deferred addressing pro se plaintiff Alea R. Kennedy’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
10
(“IFP”) and instead ordered plaintiff to file a brief showing cause why her Complaint should not be
11
dismissed as duplicative and/or frivolous. ECF No. 4. The Court noted that plaintiff had filed numerous
12
identical complaints in the District of Colorado. 1 Id. The Court ordered her to file her brief by May 1,
13
2024. Id. The Court warned plaintiff that failing to timely comply with the Order may result in a
14
recommendation that her case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s Order (ECF
15
No. 4) and respond by May 1, 2024. Plaintiff, however, untimely filed her Brief on May 3, 2024 (ECF
16
No. 5), which was not uploaded until May 6, 2024, after the Court had drafted and uploaded its Report
17
and Recommendation (ECF No. 6). The Court has considered plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 5) and
18
therefore withdraws its Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6). The Court discusses its findings
19
below and transfers the action to the District of Colorado.
20
//
21
//
22
23
24
25
1 Kennedy (PS) v. Modivcare Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03327-SBP; Kennedy (PS) v. Greystar Real Estate Partners
LLC et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-03328-SBP; Kennedy (PS) v. Priderock Capital Partners, LLC; Case No. 1:23-cv-03331-SBP;
Kennedy (PS) v. Transcat, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03332-SBP; Kennedy (PS) v. American Lighting Inc, Case No. 1:23-cv03334-SBP; Kennedy (PS) v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-03426-SBP; Kennedy (PS) v.
Apartment Investment Management Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-00696-SBP; Kennedy (PS) v. Greystar Real Estate Partners et al,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00702-SBP; Kennedy (PS) v. Cushman Wakefield, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00703-SBP
DISCUSSION
1
2
Upon review of plaintiff’s Brief (ECF No. 5), the Court notes that plaintiff alleges that “the filing
3
of this Complaint was sabotaged; and the Complaint directed to the incorrect jurisdiction.” ECF No. 5 at
4
2. “Plaintiff prays leave from this Court to rectify the filing and move the Honorable Court for Removal
5
of this action to the appropriate jurisdiction.” The Court construes plaintiff to brief as a Motion to
6
Transfer Venue. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007)
7
("A document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed.'").
8
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this case against Avanti Residential, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and Avanti
9
10
Residential – Fitzsimmons, LLC, which is located in Colorado. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges in her
11
Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) that defendants: (1) discriminated against her in violation of federal and state
12
anti-discrimination statutes; (2) assumed plaintiff was disabled where no disability was present; (3)
13
subjected plaintiff to medical treatment by unlicensed practitioners; (4) compromised the leasing
14
contract; (5) retaliation; and (6) committed gene theft. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ conduct occurred
15
while she was residing in Forum Fitzsimmons, located in Aurora, Colorado. Id.
The Court noted that plaintiff’s Complaint was near identical to numerous complaints she had
16
17
filed in the District of Colorado. ECF No. 4. The Court also noted that plaintiff’s complaint seemed to
18
contain frivolous allegations. Id. The Court ordered plaintiff to file a brief showing cause why her action
19
shouldn’t be dismissed as duplicative and/or frivolous. Id. Plaintiff filed a brief which primarily
20
requested that her case be transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction, which she suggests is the District of
21
Colorado. ECF No. 5.
22
23
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the
24
Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489, 124 S. Ct. 2686, 159 L. Ed. 2d 548
25
(2004). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising
1
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” This is referred to as federal-question
2
jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil
3
actions in diversity cases where the matter in controversy (1) exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and
4
(2) is between citizens of different states.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any
5
6
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial
7
district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
8
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in
9
which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
10
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
11
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406, the if venue is improper, the district court of that venue must either
12
dismiss the case or, if it in the interest of justice, transfer the case to any district or division in which the
13
case could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The district court has discretion to “adjudicate
14
motion for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and
15
fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d495, at 498 (9th Cir. 2000); see also 28 U.S.C. §
16
1404(a). The district may also transfer venue “upon motion, consent, or stipulation of all parties.” 28
17
U.S.C. § 1404(b).
18
19
III.
ANALYSIS
The Court considers plaintiff’s Brief (ECF No. 5). The Court construes plaintiff to brief as a
20
Motion to Transfer Venue. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081
21
(2007) ("A document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed.'"). The Court also considers whether
22
Nevada is a proper venue for this action. The Court finds, that regardless of plaintiff’s Motion to
23
Transfer (Brief, ECF No. 5), there is sufficient cause to transfer the case to the District of Colorado.
24
First, defendants do not reside in Nevada. Second, the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) provides no connection
25
to this District with respect to the events alleged. Instead, the allegations are centered in the District of
1
Colorado. Plaintiff alleges all events occurred while she was residing at Forum Fitzsimmons, which is in
2
Aurora, Colorado. ECF No. 1-1. Because the District of Colorado is an appropriate venue, the Court
3
does not turn to the third venue factor. Therefore, none of the statutory provisions renders the District of
4
Nevada a proper venue for this case. The Court will transfer the case to the District of Colorado. See in
5
re U.S. Dept. of Ed., 25 F.4th 692, 698-99 (9th Cir. 2022) (an order transferring a case to another federal
6
venue is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority under 28
7
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)).
8
9
ACCORDINGLY,
10
IT IS ORDERED that:
11
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is WITHDRAWN.
12
2. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the District of Colorado and that this case be
13
closed.
14
15
16
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and
17
recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk
18
of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal
19
may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified
20
time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).
21
This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2)
22
failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District
23
Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
24
1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
25
Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file a written notification with the court of any
1
change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney,
2
or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may
3
result in dismissal of the action.
4
5
DATED this 9th day of May 2024.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_________________________
Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?