Laszloffy v. Garcia

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 9, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01173
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

eres LET LTR COUNSEL/PARTIES OF RECORD

1 || JOHN LASZLOFFY JUN -8 2620 P.O. Box 476 . 2 | Big Bear Lake, Ca 92315 , Telephone: 909-878-0228 CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 3 || E-mail lasz07@msn.com DISTRICT OF NEVADA □□□□□ Plaintiff BY: ______ 4 || Pro Se 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 for the 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 . LAS VEGAS _ Civil Division 10 11 | CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01173-JAD-BNW JOHN LASZLOFFY, [ . 12 |] | MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiff, | FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY Byccose | FILING FEES ae □□ □□ 14 fp see ne || CINDY ZORAIDA GARCIA, | : 15 || and DOES 1 to 20, Inclusive, foo 16 | - Defendants. a 17 18 19 Plaintiff John Laszloffy moves this Honorable Court for an Order extending the deadline 20 || for Plaintiff tc pay filing fees to July 5, 2020, stating im Support: 21 1. Plaintiff living on Social Security filed a Civil complaint filed July 5, 2019. 22 |j 2. Plaintiff filed his completed (or so he thought) application for filing In forma Pauperis at 23 || ‘the same time. 24 3. Plaintiff received a four (4) page letter from the Courts Clerk office that in forma pauperis 25 applications might take several months to process. That plaintiff was not to contact the 26 court clerks to find out his status. 27 28

1 |] 4. Plaintiff also applied and was granted permission to look up his case under Pacer.gov. 245. For many months, plaintiff once a month looked up his case with no change. 6. On 2/27/2020 the Honorable Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler ordered the application 4 for in forma pauperis “Denied without prejudice”. 5 7. The Honorable Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler gave the plaintiff until 3/26/2020 to file 6 a complete in forma pauperis application or payment of filing fees. 7 | 8. Plaintiff does not understand what portion of his application is incomplete. He went over

8 it several times at the time of applying.. 9119. It wasn’t until June 1, 2020 that plaintiff went over a portion of his pacer account he 10 didn’t know existed and saw the order dated 2/27/2020. . 11/10. | Considerable legal research and time has gone into plaintiffs case (copy of partial 12 completion of plaintiff's MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF □ 13 PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION enclosed). Plaintiff has borrowed the money for filing fees and is willing to drive to Las Vegas to 15 pay them. . . 16 |} Should this Honorable J udge Magistrate grant an Order extending the deadline to pay 17 filing fees, plaintiff will within days drive to Las Vegas Federal District Court (about 31/2 18 hours away) and pay in person so that there can be no further mistakes. 19 WHEREFORE plaintiff moves this Honorable Court Judge Magistrate Brenda Weksler to 20 enter an Order extending the deadline for plaintiff to pay filing fees to July 5. 2020. 21 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6 day of June, 2020 * 22! IS ORDERED that ECF No. 9 is og pp 73 GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until 4 f4tHg 04 aly ©. 2020 to pay the filing fee in

95 IT |S SO ORDERED 26 || DATED: June 09, 2020 27 □ Sx les Wefan,

United States District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:19-cv-01173-JAD-BNW |

v. Garcia . Date Filed: 07/05/2019 to: Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey . Jury Demand: Plaintiff . to: Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler . Nature of Suit: 370 Fraud 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud Jurisdiction: Diversity

Laszloffy represented by John Laszloffy PO Box 476 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 (909) 866-3092 PRO SE

. □ Zoraida Garcia

Filed Docket Text : □ Case randomly assigned to Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey and Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler. (MR) (Entered: 07/08/2019) /2019 1 | APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff John Laszloffy. (Attachments: Complaint, # 2 Exhibits, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Summons, # 5 Cover Letter) (MR) Modified □□ 7/8/2019 to restrict access to 1 -2 per LR IC 6-1 (MR). (Entered: 07/08/2019) /2019 2 | ADVISORY LETTER to litigant. (MR) (Entered: 07/08/2019) 3 | MOTION for Pro Se Litigant to File Electronically by Plaintiff John Laszloffy. (JM) (Entered: 07/18/2019) . 4 | MOTION for Pro Se Litigant to File Electronically, filed by Plaintiff John Laszloffy. (Attachments: cover letter) (ADR) (Entered: 08/23/2019) LL LAC Lt metres terrane ener etree □□□□□ □□□□□□□□ 3 | MOTION for Leave to File to File Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff John Laszloffy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ADR) Modified on 1/6/2020 to correct filed date (ADR). (Main Document 5 replaced on 1/6/2020) (ADR). (Entered: 01/03/2020) te & | NOTICE of Change of Email Address by Plaintiff John Laszloffy. (ADR) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

7. | ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1 plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. File a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or Payment of filing fee due 3/26/2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 5 plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 3 plaintiffs first motion to file electronically is GRANTED. By 3/13/20 plaintiff must file a written certification that she □□□□□□□□□ the CM/ECF tutorial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 4 plaintiff's second motion to file electronic is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 2/20/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant 1 the NEF - ANR) (Entered: N9/8/9NNIN)

1 | JOHN LASZLOFFY P.O. Box 476 2 || Big Bear Lake, Ca 92315 Telephone: 909-866-3092 3 || E-mail lasz07@msn.com Plaintiff . 4 || Pro Se ; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 for the 7 . DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 LAS VEGAS 9 . Civil Division 10 il | CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01173-JAD-BNW JOHN LASZLOFFY, 12 ee Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CINDY ZORAIDA GARCIA, 15 || and DOES 1 to 20, Inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OFACTION 18 In diversity cases, federal courts must apply the substantive law of the forum state. 19 Kabatoff'v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 627 F.2d 207, 209 (9" Cir. 1980); King v. Penrod Co., 20 | 652 F. Supp. 1331, 1333 (D.Nev. 1987). In this instant case, Nevada is the forum state because 21 . all the defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct occurred in Nevada. 22 "Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction 23 over persons." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S.__,_, 134 S.Ct. 746, 753, = LEd.2d___ 24 (2014). 25 In applying Nevada’s substantive law, “[T]he task of this court is to approximate state 26 law as closely as possible.” Truck Ins. Exchange v. Tetzlaff, 683 F.Supp. 223, 227 (DS.Nev. 27 . 28

1 || 1988) (citing Gee v. Tennaco. Inc. 615 F:2d 847, 861 (9" Cir. 1980)). If Nevada’s high court has 2 || not decided a particular issue, “this Court must predict how the state high court would resolve it.” 3 || Id (citing Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell, 803 F.2d 1482 (9" Cir. 1986), modified, 810 F2d. 1517 4 || (9" Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, this Court must apply Nevada law as it is, not as it ought to be. 5 || Klingebiel v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 494 F2d 345, 346-47 (9" Cir. 1974; Southern Pacific 6 || Zransp. Co. v. United States, 462 F.Supp. 1227, 1233 (E.D.Cal. 1978). This Court is not free to 7 || predict possible changes in the law. Moore v. R.G. Indus., Inc. 789 F.2d 1326, 1327 (9" Cir. 8 || 1986). Nor are we free to engraft upon prior state decisions exceptions or modifications that have

_ 9 || not been adopted by the state courts. See Stancil v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 589 F.Supp. 78, 10 || 81 (D.Haw. 1984); See also Day & Zimmermann, Inc. V. Chalioner, 423 U.S. 3, 4, 96 S.CXt. 11 || 167, 168, 46 L.Ed.2d 3 (1975). FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 13 jj 1. Deceit; Fraud and Extortion 14 |] 2. [70]“Fraud’ means an intentional misreprentation, deception or concealment of a material 15 fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his rights or 16 property or to otherwise injure another person.” Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 . . 52 - Nevada Supreme Court, 2006. Cited by 88. 18 3 eB rand means an intentional misrepresentation, deception or concealmentnof a material 19 fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights or 20 property or to otherwise injure another person.” Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.001(2) 21 4. “Fraud, deceit and defraud are not limited to common-law fraud or deceit.” Nev. Rev: 22 ‘Stat. 90.245. 23 || 5. “Whenever an intent to defraud: (1) Shall be made an element of an offense, it shall be 24 sufficient if an intent to defraud any person, association or body politic or corporation, 25 whatever.” Nev. Rev. Stat.’ 193.040(1). 26 || 6. “Insurance fraud” defined. “Insurance fraud” means knowingly and willfully:” (2)

ey □

I “Presenting or causing to be presented any statement as a part of, or in support of, a claim 2 _ for payment or any other benefits under a policy of insurance issued pursuant to this title, 3 if the person who presents or causes the presentation of the statement conceals or omits 4 facts, or contains false or misleading information concerning any fact material to that 5 claim.” Nev. Rev. Stat. 686A.2815(2). , 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7 | 7. Emotional Distress; Depression; Loss of Sleep 8 || 8. He said that he had suffered mentally and emotionally ... allegedly made about other 9 doctors, Sullivan correctly argues that the statements were introduced to show Bongiovi's 10 mental state, such as ... Sullivan also testified that the incident had a profound emotional 11 impact on him ... Bongiovi y. Sullivan, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 - Nevada Supreme Court, 12 2006. Citéd by 88. 13 | 9. “Emotional difficulties, too, can be compensated.” How to Win Your Personel Injury 14 Claim. 9" Edition, Page 174. See plaintiff's complaint exhibit 5. 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Loss of Reputation □ 17 |} 11. [48]General damages are those that are awarded for “loss of reputation, shame, 18 mortification and hurt feelings.” [49]General damages are presumed upon proof of the □ 19 defamation alone because the proof establishes amount for present and future injury to the 20 plaintifP s reputation and “because of the impossibility of affixing an exact monetary 21 amount for present and future injury to the plaintiffs reputation, wounded feelings and 22 humiliation, loss of business, and any consequential physical illness or pain. Bongiovi v. 23 Sullivan, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 - Nevada Supreme Court, 2006. Cited by 88. 24} FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Conspiracy to Intimidate: Defamation: Libel; Slander □ 26 | 13. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in 27 28

1 any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or 2 enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the 3 United States, or because of his having so excercised the same; 18 U.S.C §241. 4 - 6 . 7 8 oe 9 10 11 12 13 14 .

15 16 " 18 . 19 □ oO 21 22

23 24 . 25 26 27 28 A

□□ . “x 7 : q oO AQ * . “ w . St ° -o Or @ Or : . KA riaAN PB ee : a. ge. .*

Bia i| re oS Ho Sg rg i gs ry ; 2S = wi ‘ i) Se oO : | 2 6 3 . i Sg ao S II re 7 m4 B ns VES) pp HR a Hooef eB. Hm ai | ch poy °F te 23 mo bee te Bs oo ao : □ a a mit # pa. me □□ j= fa WS . ut Cs et n eevee creepers wees os u} oi we □ Ho UB ORES : tf @ 3 wu ii < Qa ° Oo Pw gs Oo □ : Bsfea8 . oOo a 5" 2 ERE: ~~ rn ¢ = om 8S = So 2S& . — = © © = < . = S . =. a a = fn as? = ° ° ee we > oe “ay coe = ce =" mW 3 LRA = 3 > ~ □ | \ { = g. Fe] = 5 □ □ > = — Oe 3 : Tae Oo = . <2 peng = : im La ee = . . BW Soars my = 7 PS = . og i = = (cH 4 An = > . amp RLTATAA SW OF C0 = | 7 Oo = oo 2D VE □□□ = □□ ‘4 ‘Boa | ro fm oa gee oo co, ¢ 2 Wy Pi . 2 Si a a , ny . . ‘o LW to: Rey a a a ‘