United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AMENDED COMPLAINT
(EFC NO. 5) AND MOTION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY (ECF NO.
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court are pro se Plaintiff David Shu's
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) and Motion for Permission to
File and Receive Notices Electronically (ECF No. 6). For the
reasons stated below, Shu's amended complaint should be
dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and his motion to file
electronically is denied as moot.
March 28, 2018, the Court granted Shu's application to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his
complaint without prejudice. (ECF No. 3). Among other
concerns, the Court noted that the “Defendants'
out-of-state residences…make it doubtful that this
Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants or could
be considered a proper venue.” (Id. at 3).
filed an amended complaint on April 9, 2018. (ECF No. 5).
Four Defendants are named. (Id. at 1-2). Three are
individuals who reside in California. (Id.) The
fourth is the United States Postal Service. (Id.).
The amended complaint's main assertion is that the
Defendants conspired to cause the United States Government to
approve and pay for a false car accident claim allegedly
caused by Shu. (Id. at 2-3). All of the facts giving
rise to this case took place in California. (Id. at
due process requires that defendants ‘have certain
minimum contacts' with a forum state ‘such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.'” Morrill
v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
310, 316 (1945)). “Personal jurisdiction over each
defendant must be analyzed separately.” Harris
Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements
Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). The rules
regarding proper venue emphasize the residences of the
defendants or “a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (e).
on the allegations in the amended complaint, Nevada has no
connection to this case. Defendants reside in California and
the District of Columbia. All the facts giving rise to this
case took place in California. While Shu asserts that the
“U.S. Postal Service…can be found in Las Vegas
Nevada” (ECF No. 5 at 3), Shu failed to address how
this Court has jurisdiction over the individual Defendants
residing in California or why this Court would be the proper
venue for this case. Therefore, the Court should dismiss this
case on jurisdictional grounds. In the alternative, the Court
could transfer the matter to the proper court in California.
Because this case should be dismissed, Shu's motion to
file and receive notices electronically is dismissed as moot.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Shu's Amended Complaint (ECF No.
5) be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED that Shu's Motion for Permission to File and
Receive Notices Electronically (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot.
to Local Rules IB 3-1, a party may object to Reports and
Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge. Objections
must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court
within fourteen days. (See LR IB 3-1). The Supreme
Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that
an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file
objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1)
failure to file objections within the specified time and (2)
failure to properly address and brief the objectionable
issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's
order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the
District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153,
1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch.
Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
LSR 2-2, the Plaintiff must immediately file written
notification with the Court of any change of address. The
notification must include proof of service upon each opposing
party of the party's attorney Failure to comply
with this Rule may result in dismissal of the action
(See LSR 2-2)