Sobocienski v. Haeker

District Court, D. Alaska·Decided March 3, 2021·No. 3:21-cv-00054·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 TRUDY SOBOCIENSKI, Case No. 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION

10 DIANA KAEKER, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF #6) 13 containing the findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach entered 14 December 1, 2020, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF #1-3) be dismissed. Plaintiff 15 filed an objection to the report and recommendation on December 11, 2020. (ECF #7) 16 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 17 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LR IB 3-2 and determines that the Court does not have personal 18 jurisdiction over the defendants and venue in the district of Nevada is improper. “For a court to 19 exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must have at least 20 ‘minimum contacts’ with the relevant forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not 21 offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin 22 Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 23 310, 316 (1945)). All the defendants in this action are residents of Alaska and are not alleged to 24 have any contacts with Nevada. As such, this Court will not make any rulings or consider the 25 amended complaint. Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the District of Nevada is not 26 the proper venue for this action. None of the defendants are residents of Nevada, none of the 27 events giving rise to the claim took place in Nevada, and there is another district in which the 28 action could be filed. The action is hereby transferred to the District of Alaska pursuant to 28US.C. § 1404(a). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action be transferred to the District of Alaska. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 4| (ECF #6) is DENIED as moot. 5 | Dated this 3rd day of March, 2021. hal& 6 _ Kent J. Dawson 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sobocienski v. Haeker, (D. Alaska 2021).

Sobocienski v. Haeker (Sobocienski v. Haeker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Associated Press v. United States
326 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)