Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Board of Trustees of Unite Here Health v. Aguilar

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 22, 2017

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNITE HERE HEALTH, Plaintiff,
v.
NORA A. AGUILAR, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Opposition to Responsive Pleadings (ECF No. 88), filed on February 24, 2017. To date, no party has filed an opposition to this motion and the time for opposition has now expired.

         BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

         On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims for restitution, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and unjust enrichment. Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has served or is attempting service on all named defendants. On January 14, 2017, Plaintiff completed service of process on Defendant Manuel Martinez (“Martinez”). Summonses Returned Executed (ECF No. 43). On January 18, 2017, Martinez filed a copy of the summons and the first page of the complaint with the words “Refused to take it, ” “Delivered to the wrong person, ” and “Erroneously Delivered” written across the pages. See ECF No. 42. The Clerk's office labeled this document “Summons Returned Unexecuted.” On February 4, 2017, Plaintiff completed service of process on Defendant Malolis Munguia (“Munguia”). Summonses Returned Executed (ECF No. 62). On February 8, 2017, Munguia filed a document which was labeled by the Clerk's office as “Notice of Non-Acceptance of Offer to Contract and Non-Consent to Proceedings.” See ECF No. 61. This document stated, among other things, that Munguia was “not obligated to comply with the private corporate statutes that compel and regulate this body” and that she did not “ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT” or “CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.” Id. Munguia sent this same document with a copy of the summons stamped with the phrase “I do not accept this offer to contract and do not consent to these proceedings” to the Court on February 13, 2017. This time, the Clerk's office docketed the document as an answer to Plaintiff's complaint. Answer (ECF No. 70). Once the document was docketed as a answer, Munguia began to receive courtesy copies of all court filings. In response to a Minute Order (ECF No 68) issued by the Court, Munguia filed another document that was labeled as a “Notice of Non-Consent to Proceedings.” See ECF No. 79. This document states the following:

1. There has been no proof present to Me ‘supported by evidences' of the legality of this case
2. I have NOT received your bond
3. I am NOT your defendant
4. I am a woman of flesh and blood living human being
5. I am NOT a resident of Clark County
6. I am NOT a resident of the state of Nevada
7. I am NOT within your ‘Jurisdiction'

Id.

         Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court striking Defendants' filings on the grounds that they do not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendants' filings if the Court's deems them responsive pleadings because this Court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Defendants despite Defendants' argument to the contrary.

         Documents filed by a pro se litigant are interpreted less stringently than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596 (1972); see also United States v. Funds from Prudential Securities, 362 F.Supp.2d 75, 82 (D.D.C.2005). However, “the less stringent standards for pro se litigants does not allow them to simply disregard the applicable Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or render the court the decision-maker of what claims a [litigant] may or may not want to assert.” Funds from Prudential Securities, 362 F.Supp.2d at 82. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs a responding party to state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.