Peter v. Wojcicki

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * * MARIA PETER, MICHAEL PETER, JULIKA Case No.: 2:21-cv-02026-APG-EJY BERGER, and JAROLIN BERGER,

Plaintiffs, ORDER v. and

SUSAN DIANE WOJCICKI, WILLIAM REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION HENRY CATES, STEPHANE BANCEL, and ALBER BOURLA,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is an application to proceed in forma pauperis that is signed by one individual but appears to be filed on behalf of four individuals. ECF No. 4. Also pending before the Court is a Complaint filed by four individuals who live in Austria, which names four individuals who are alleged to live in California as defendants. ECF No. 4-1.

The in forma pauperis application suggest that Maria Peter, the application’s signatory, earns approximately $12,000 a year and receives an additional $5,000 a year in governmental support. The only expenses listed are $500 for housing and $100 for transportation each month. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and asserts a claim of negligence related to events that are alleged to have occurred in New York, Massachusetts, California, and Washington State. Id. at 4.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action under in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma pauperis status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987).

While the pending Complaint alleges diversity of citizenship, and therefore may, at least jurisdiction over the parties. Personal jurisdiction is established when “(1) provided for by law; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.” Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. 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 court applies the law of the forum state.” Id. citing Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a state, such as Nevada, has a “long-arm” statute providing “jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a court need only address federal due process standards.” Id. citing Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 509, 134 P.3d 710, 712 (2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065); Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. Under these standards, a defendant must generally have “certain minimum contacts” with the forum state before personal jurisdiction will be established. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Personal jurisdiction over a party may be established through general or specific jurisdiction. Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413–414 (1984). In this case, however, Plaintiff pleads no facts in support of Nevada’s exercise of personal jurisdiction under either theory. ECF No. 4-1. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to assert any facts alleging any party’s relationship with the State of Nevada. Plaintiff further fails to allege any event or transaction of any kind occurred in the State of Nevada.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 4-1) be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Dated this 21st day of December, 2021.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. 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).