Peter v. Wojcicki

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 MARIA PETER, MICHAEL PETER, JULIKA Case No.: 2:21-cv-02026-APG-EJY BERGER, and JAROLIN BERGER, [5] Plaintiffs, ORDER [6] v. and [7] SUSAN DIANE WOJCICKI, WILLIAM REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 HENRY CATES, STEPHANE BANCEL, and ALBER BOURLA, [9] Defendants. [10] 11 Pending before the Court is an application to proceed in forma pauperis that is signed by one 12 individual but appears to be filed on behalf of four individuals. ECF No. 4. Also pending before 13 the Court is a Complaint filed by four individuals who live in Austria, which names four individuals 14 who are alleged to live in California as defendants. ECF No. 4-1. 15 The in forma pauperis application suggest that Maria Peter, the application’s signatory, earns 16 approximately $12,000 a year and receives an additional $5,000 a year in governmental support. 17 The only expenses listed are $500 for housing and $100 for transportation each month. Plaintiff’s 18 Complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and asserts a claim of negligence 19 related to events that are alleged to have occurred in New York, Massachusetts, California, and 20 Washington State. Id. at 4. 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action 22 under in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees 23 necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1). The court may deny in forma pauperis 24 status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or 25 without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First National Bank 26 & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). 27 While the pending Complaint alleges diversity of citizenship, and therefore may, at least 1 jurisdiction over the parties. Personal jurisdiction is established when “(1) provided for by law; and 2 (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.” Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. 3 Downey, 177 F. Supp. 3d 1286, 1290 (D. Nev. 2016) citing Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 4 F.2d 1204 , 1207 (9th Cir. 1980). “When no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, a federal 5 court applies the law of the forum state.” Id. citing Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th 6 Cir. 2008). Where a state, such as Nevada, has a “long-arm” statute providing “jurisdiction to the 7 fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a court need only 8 address federal due process standards.” Id. citing Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 9 Court, 122 Nev. 509 , 134 P.3d 710, 712 (2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065 ); Boschetto, 539 10 F.3d at 1015. Under these standards, a defendant must generally have “certain minimum contacts” 11 with the forum state before personal jurisdiction will be established. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, [12] 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Personal jurisdiction over a party may be established through general or 13 specific jurisdiction. Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016 ; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, 14 S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 , 413–414 (1984). In this case, however, Plaintiff pleads no facts in support 15 of Nevada’s exercise of personal jurisdiction under either theory. ECF No. 4-1. Indeed, Plaintiff 16 fails to assert any facts alleging any party’s relationship with the State of Nevada. Plaintiff further 17 fails to allege any event or transaction of any kind occurred in the State of Nevada. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. 20 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 4-1) be dismissed 21 for lack of personal jurisdiction. 22 Dated this 21st day of December, 2021. [24] ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [27] 1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be 3 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has 4 held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file 5 objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also 6 held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address 7 and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 8 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 9 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 , 454 (9th Cir. 1983).