Duymayan v. NV Energy

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00707
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Mert Duymayan, Case No. 2:25-cv-00707-CDS-MDC

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 6 v.

7 NV Energy, [ECF No. 7]

8 Defendant 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Mert Duymayan initiated this lawsuit against NV Energy for 11 overcharging for electricity and disconnecting his service despite an automatic bankruptcy stay. 12 Compl., ECF No. 1-1. He also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 1. After 13 reviewing the IFP application and complaint, United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. 14 Couvillier III denied Duymayan IFP status and issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that 15 I dismiss the complaint without leave to amend because the court lacks subject matter 16 jurisdiction over this case. R&R, ECF No. 7. Judge Couvillier found that because Duymayan 17 asserts claims for violations of the automatic bankruptcy stay, he must bring those claims in 18 bankruptcy court. Id. at 2–3. 19 Duymayan had until June 4, 2025, to file any specific, written objections to the 20 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Id. at 5–6 (citing Local Rule IB 3-2 (stating 21 that parties wishing to object to the findings and recommendations must file specific written 22 objections within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). The time to object 23 has passed and, over a month later, Duymayn has not responded in any way. It is well- 24 established that “no review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 25 unless objections are filed.” Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also 26 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Although de novo review is not required, I nonetheless conduct one here. The magistrate judge correctly finds that this court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief for claims alleging any 3|| violation of a bankruptcy stay. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that claims related to a bankruptcy 4|| stay are a core matter reserved to the bankruptcy court. See In re Goodman, 991 F.2d 613, 617 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The adversary proceeding involved: (1) allegations that the automatic stay was 6]| violated, a claim that is entirely dependent upon bankruptcy law for definition;. ..”). 7 Judge Couvillier also concludes that the deficiencies found in Duymayan’s complaint 8|| cannot be cured by amendment. ECF No. 7 at 3. Considering the apparent lack of subject-matter Q}| jurisdiction over Duymayan’s claims and the nature of the allegations in his complaint, I agree that granting leave to amend would be futile. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that pro se litigants should be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear 12] that the defective complaint cannot be cured by amendment). Because this court lacks subject 13] matter jurisdiction to address Duymayan’s claims, I accept the R@R in full and dismiss this case 14] without prejudice. However, the court acknowledges the magistrate judge’s note and footnote 15|| about Duymayan’s numerous cases filed in this district against various defendants, which have 16|| been dismissed immediately for similar reasons. ECF No. 7 at 5 n.1. Duymayan is cautioned that 17] future frivolous filings may result in the entry of a vexatious litigant order against him, which 18|| would restrict his ability to file in this court. 19 Conclusion 20 For those reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 7] is accepted and adopted, and this case is dismissed without 22}| prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this 23]| case. / ) 24 Dated: July 10, 2025 LZ □

25 wh hie CristinaD. Silva 26 7 ed States District Judge /