Mondrian v. Kaur ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AUGUSTUS MONDRIAN, No. 1:21-cv-00151-DAD-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 PRABHJOT KAUR, ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 4) 16 17 18 On February 8, 2021, plaintiff Augustus Mondrian filed suit against defendant Prabhjot 19 Kaur, plaintiff’s ex-wife, alleging that in connection to their divorce, defendant removed property 20 from their apartment and took money from their joint bank accounts. (Doc. No. 1.) In addition, 21 plaintiff alleges the defendant fabricated claims of domestic violence, which resulted in her being 22 granted custody of their child. Plaintiff seeks to be compensated for the wedding and reception in 23 India and to recover the money taken from the couples’ joint accounts. (See id.) In conjunction 24 with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against defendant, 25 seeking to enjoin her from contacting plaintiff. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to 26 proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) 27 On February 9, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 28 recommending the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4.) The magistrate 1 | judge noted that the district court is unable to review the judgment of the Kern County Superior 2 | Court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and as such could not review that state court’s orders 3 || regarding the couples’ property division, the dissolution of the marriage, or the custody 4 | determination. (/d. at 4 (citing Rooker vy. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of 5 | Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)).) In addition, the magistrate judge found that 6 | plaintiffs allegations of diversity jurisdiction were insufficient, warranting dismissal of the action 7 | on that ground as well. (Doc. No. 4 at 3-4.) 8 The findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff and contained notice that 9 | any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Ud. at 10 | 4.) The findings and recommendations also “advised that failure to file objections within the 11 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (d. (citing Martinez v. 12 | Yilst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)).) 13 | No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C©), this court conducted a de 15 | novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 16 | recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 4) are 19 adopted in full; 20 2. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction; 21 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a temporary 22 restraining order (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) are denied having been rendered moot; 23 4. The action is terminated in its entirety; and 24 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *° | Dated: _Mareh 9, 2021 Vile A Drag 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28